8 ms·

> ATX has the security measures of a third-world country That's a pretty dramatic way to describe police not wanting to spend resources to get your $200 headph

> ATX has the security measures of a third-world country That's a pretty dramatic way to describe police not wanting to spend resources to get your $200 headphones back..

mrits 5y ago
It is spending resources to catch a criminal. Very unlikely this loser is just stealing once and going back to being a decent citizen.
- thebean11 5y ago
  It depends, if he just found some AirPods on the ground and decided to keep them, I actually think it's very likely.
holistio 5y ago
What's the threshold over which you believe crime is no longer okay? AirPods Max? Only $549. A MacBook? Only $2000. A car? Only $20000. Does someone have to burn my house down for it to be worthwhile for the police?
- mbesto 5y ago
  Believe it or not, these thresholds have effectively existed in the US forever. It's why we have small claims courts, misdemeanors vs felonies, traffic violations, etc. > What's the threshold over which you believe crime is no longer okay? You completely missed the parent's point. It's not that they don't think crime should be "no longer be okay", it was addressing the the grandparent's point of "we're living in a third world country because my $200 AirPods got stolen" is simply out of touch with reality. > Does someone have to burn my house down for it to be worthwhile for the police? In third world countries this is pretty much how it works. As an American, going to Brazil or South Africa (for example), you're basically told "don't wear/carry anything of value". It's not that there is a chance that you'll get mugged, it's that it's likely it'll happen. I live in Austin and carry my AirPods on me all of the time. The likelihood that I experience what the OP experienced is so unlikely that it rarely crosses my mind. The grandparent's comment is hyperbolic drivel.
  - gverrilla 5y ago
    > It's not that there is a chance that you'll get mugged, it's that it's likely it'll happen. Fake news: there's actually very few places where this would be true. You are being told that because in these countries most people are poor and afraid of losing their hard earned money/stuff more than in America generally. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen at all. Most of the times directly violent crimes don't pay as well as drug dealing, and the criminals sure know it: there's favelas in Sao Paulo and Rio where if there's a thief on the territory, drug gangs will hunt him down: they know drug clients need to feel secure to go in there and spend money. Once I had my car stolen near the uni I was attending, and also near a favela. One of my colleagues lived there, and I told him the fact: next day he told me drug gangs assured him, and he was assuring me, that they would investigate and if the thief was found to be a local resident they would find him and return my car. The car was found 2 days after the fact, in very bad condition with a hole underneath the motor (they were probably using it to go into ramps/offroad), by the police, in another favela a few miles away - by the looks of it, the thiefs didn't want to gain money on this: they took the car only to have drinks and fun and trash it, then abandon it.
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  There are thresholds at which it becomes a felony, so that might be an answer to your question. Otherwise we have to ask it the other way as well -- should the police send out a detective if your 99 cent fidget spinner goes missing?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    > There are thresholds at which it becomes a felony, so that might be an answer to your question. Are you saying that police shouldn't bother investigating crimes that aren't felonies? Why even have misdemeanors at all then?
    - thebean11 5y ago
      Most people who get in trouble for misdemeanors are observed by a police officer directly (drunk driving, speeding, vandalism etc). They usually aren't "investigated"..
- thebean11 5y ago
  I never said it was okay to steal anything. It's just not obviously a good use of taxpayer resources to hunt down something with such a low value. I don't claim to know where that threshold is, but it's probably above $200. Conversely, let's say I accuse an Uber driver of stealing a $1 bill I left in his car, is that a good use of police time? Where do you draw the line?
- chrisco255 5y ago
  There is a separate category for theft called grand theft, which is typically more heavily pursued. The opposite is petty theft. However, the big problem with spending resources to investigate a theft is that the vast majority of the time there will be no leads, and no way to pursue them. My laptop was stolen out of my truck, window smashed and backpack gone. Unless I had video evidence or witness testimony to go off of. There are only so many detectives and forensics experts and only so much time and they typically have multiple cases going on at a time.
- mehphp 5y ago
  It's a matter of resources. They literally do not have the time to track down every single theft. Therefore, they have to triage.
e4e78a06 5y ago
Capturing and punishing thieves has a deterring effect on other thieves. Police spending resources to get "your $200 headphones back" saves more than just the $200 headphones, since usually thieves are repeat offenders and it discourages would-be thieves from becoming thieves. If you think about it, if a police officer makes $100/h you could conceivably make the case that catching a single thief could potentially save local taxpayers who had stuff stolen the officer's full time salary for an entire week. I'd say that's worth it. Take a look at this phone thief at a concert [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBb33bKG1hQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBb33bKG1hQ
- tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
  Having a working law enforcement system that people can trust also means people can rely on the law to be enforced to protect them, instead of taking the law into their own hands.
friedturkey 5y ago
First world countries make efforts to stop thieves. Meanwhile, countries in America's league do not.

> ATX has the security measures of a third-world country That's a pretty dramatic way to describe police not wanting to spend resources to get your $200 headphones back..

mrits 5y ago

It is spending resources to catch a criminal. Very unlikely this loser is just stealing once and going back to being a decent citizen.

thebean11 5y ago
It depends, if he just found some AirPods on the ground and decided to keep them, I actually think it's very likely.

holistio 5y ago

What's the threshold over which you believe crime is no longer okay? AirPods Max? Only $549. A MacBook? Only $2000. A car? Only $20000. Does someone have to burn my house down for it to be worthwhile for the police?

mbesto 5y ago
Believe it or not, these thresholds have effectively existed in the US forever. It's why we have small claims courts, misdemeanors vs felonies, traffic violations, etc. > What's the threshold over which you believe crime is no longer okay? You completely missed the parent's point. It's not that they don't think crime should be "no longer be okay", it was addressing the the grandparent's point of "we're living in a third world country because my $200 AirPods got stolen" is simply out of touch with reality. > Does someone have to burn my house down for it to be worthwhile for the police? In third world countries this is pretty much how it works. As an American, going to Brazil or South Africa (for example), you're basically told "don't wear/carry anything of value". It's not that there is a chance that you'll get mugged, it's that it's likely it'll happen. I live in Austin and carry my AirPods on me all of the time. The likelihood that I experience what the OP experienced is so unlikely that it rarely crosses my mind. The grandparent's comment is hyperbolic drivel.
- gverrilla 5y ago
  > It's not that there is a chance that you'll get mugged, it's that it's likely it'll happen. Fake news: there's actually very few places where this would be true. You are being told that because in these countries most people are poor and afraid of losing their hard earned money/stuff more than in America generally. Doesn't mean it's likely to happen at all. Most of the times directly violent crimes don't pay as well as drug dealing, and the criminals sure know it: there's favelas in Sao Paulo and Rio where if there's a thief on the territory, drug gangs will hunt him down: they know drug clients need to feel secure to go in there and spend money. Once I had my car stolen near the uni I was attending, and also near a favela. One of my colleagues lived there, and I told him the fact: next day he told me drug gangs assured him, and he was assuring me, that they would investigate and if the thief was found to be a local resident they would find him and return my car. The car was found 2 days after the fact, in very bad condition with a hole underneath the motor (they were probably using it to go into ramps/offroad), by the police, in another favela a few miles away - by the looks of it, the thiefs didn't want to gain money on this: they took the car only to have drinks and fun and trash it, then abandon it.
rootusrootus 5y ago
There are thresholds at which it becomes a felony, so that might be an answer to your question. Otherwise we have to ask it the other way as well -- should the police send out a detective if your 99 cent fidget spinner goes missing?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > There are thresholds at which it becomes a felony, so that might be an answer to your question. Are you saying that police shouldn't bother investigating crimes that aren't felonies? Why even have misdemeanors at all then?
  - thebean11 5y ago
    Most people who get in trouble for misdemeanors are observed by a police officer directly (drunk driving, speeding, vandalism etc). They usually aren't "investigated"..
thebean11 5y ago
I never said it was okay to steal anything. It's just not obviously a good use of taxpayer resources to hunt down something with such a low value. I don't claim to know where that threshold is, but it's probably above $200. Conversely, let's say I accuse an Uber driver of stealing a $1 bill I left in his car, is that a good use of police time? Where do you draw the line?
chrisco255 5y ago
There is a separate category for theft called grand theft, which is typically more heavily pursued. The opposite is petty theft. However, the big problem with spending resources to investigate a theft is that the vast majority of the time there will be no leads, and no way to pursue them. My laptop was stolen out of my truck, window smashed and backpack gone. Unless I had video evidence or witness testimony to go off of. There are only so many detectives and forensics experts and only so much time and they typically have multiple cases going on at a time.
mehphp 5y ago
It's a matter of resources. They literally do not have the time to track down every single theft. Therefore, they have to triage.

e4e78a06 5y ago

Capturing and punishing thieves has a deterring effect on other thieves. Police spending resources to get "your $200 headphones back" saves more than just the $200 headphones, since usually thieves are repeat offenders and it discourages would-be thieves from becoming thieves. If you think about it, if a police officer makes $100/h you could conceivably make the case that catching a single thief could potentially save local taxpayers who had stuff stolen the officer's full time salary for an entire week. I'd say that's worth it. Take a look at this phone thief at a concert [1]. [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBb33bKG1hQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBb33bKG1hQ

tgsovlerkhgsel 5y ago
Having a working law enforcement system that people can trust also means people can rely on the law to be enforced to protect them, instead of taking the law into their own hands.

friedturkey 5y ago

First world countries make efforts to stop thieves. Meanwhile, countries in America's league do not.