4 ms·

So stopping bike thefts is harrasing minorities now, or are you on a tangent Noone was talking about? The conversation was about why cops in these areas don't b

So stopping bike thefts is harrasing minorities now, or are you on a tangent Noone was talking about? The conversation was about why cops in these areas don't bother investigating crimes and mugging, I would hope you don't think enforcing those laws is racist. If it is, I guess we should just be mad max or something. I agree cops in this country need serious reform, but that's not what this discussion is about.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago
As a cyclist myself, one of the reasons I don't support laws about cycle helmets is that police regularly use them (as they do many other laws) to harass people on the basis of race, wealth or other biases via inconsistent enforcement. And that's a law, that in theory, I might be convinced had some merit. Not some War on Drugs BS. How can you exist in the year 2022, have strong opinions on law and order on the internet and feel deep sympathy with police officers forced to do a thankless task as public servants and yet be blissfully unaware of this entire concept?
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  I feel like we're not reading the same thread here. Cops going after minorities is a bad thing. But handcuffing the cops so badly that they have no interest in going after organized serial theft rings because they know that no charges will stick is just as much of a problem in the other direction. Unless you think it's fine to live in a place with 0 personal property protection there's obviously a middle ground that should be met here. But whatever, I don't live there, and would move if my local police got that disfunctional, so I'm happy for the people who enjoy living there. May your bikes stay in your possession for at least a year or two, I guess.
  - ZeroGravitas 4y ago
    Something I didn't spell out, which may explain some of your confusion, there is such a thing as "drug related theft crimes", these are crimes committed by drug addicts to feed their habit. They have a distinct pattern, and most of the crimes mentioned in this thread fit that pattern. So, if you try to be "tough on crime" by locking up people with addictions rather than helping them break their addiction and/or even just in some scenarios giving them drugs for free, then you are wasting both lives and money. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF > Another dimension of drug-related crime is whether the offense is committed to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to BJS national surveys, the most comprehensive information available, an estimated 17% of 1991 State prison inmates and 13% of convicted jail inmates in 1989 reported committing their offenses to get money to buy drugs (table␣3). Offenders convicted of robbery, burglary, and larceny/theft were most likely to commit their offense to obtain money to buy drugs. Offenders convicted of sexual assault and homicide were among the offenders least likely to commit the offense to sustain their drug habit. I'm suggesting that we should listen to experts, and get the former group medical help, which frees up police time and resources to go after the second group of murderers and rapists, which helps the idea appeal to the tough on crime types even if it has the drawbacks of being more humane, more effective and cheaper as well as actually reducing crime. But the War on Drugs was never really about the drugs in the first place, so it's not like this was some innocent mistake, it's a problem that got created and is now exploited to push more of the same bad policies.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

As a cyclist myself, one of the reasons I don't support laws about cycle helmets is that police regularly use them (as they do many other laws) to harass people on the basis of race, wealth or other biases via inconsistent enforcement. And that's a law, that in theory, I might be convinced had some merit. Not some War on Drugs BS. How can you exist in the year 2022, have strong opinions on law and order on the internet and feel deep sympathy with police officers forced to do a thankless task as public servants and yet be blissfully unaware of this entire concept?

thatguy0900 4y ago
I feel like we're not reading the same thread here. Cops going after minorities is a bad thing. But handcuffing the cops so badly that they have no interest in going after organized serial theft rings because they know that no charges will stick is just as much of a problem in the other direction. Unless you think it's fine to live in a place with 0 personal property protection there's obviously a middle ground that should be met here. But whatever, I don't live there, and would move if my local police got that disfunctional, so I'm happy for the people who enjoy living there. May your bikes stay in your possession for at least a year or two, I guess.
- ZeroGravitas 4y ago
  Something I didn't spell out, which may explain some of your confusion, there is such a thing as "drug related theft crimes", these are crimes committed by drug addicts to feed their habit. They have a distinct pattern, and most of the crimes mentioned in this thread fit that pattern. So, if you try to be "tough on crime" by locking up people with addictions rather than helping them break their addiction and/or even just in some scenarios giving them drugs for free, then you are wasting both lives and money. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/DRRC.PDF > Another dimension of drug-related crime is whether the offense is committed to obtain money (or goods to sell to get money) to support drug use. According to BJS national surveys, the most comprehensive information available, an estimated 17% of 1991 State prison inmates and 13% of convicted jail inmates in 1989 reported committing their offenses to get money to buy drugs (table␣3). Offenders convicted of robbery, burglary, and larceny/theft were most likely to commit their offense to obtain money to buy drugs. Offenders convicted of sexual assault and homicide were among the offenders least likely to commit the offense to sustain their drug habit. I'm suggesting that we should listen to experts, and get the former group medical help, which frees up police time and resources to go after the second group of murderers and rapists, which helps the idea appeal to the tough on crime types even if it has the drawbacks of being more humane, more effective and cheaper as well as actually reducing crime. But the War on Drugs was never really about the drugs in the first place, so it's not like this was some innocent mistake, it's a problem that got created and is now exploited to push more of the same bad policies.