3 ms·

You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and

You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and then two thefts that have just happened. Here's the full quote: > Mark Shull, a Palo Alto resident since 1983, also supported the use of license-plate readers. Until last year, he had never experienced property theft, Shull told the council. That's when thieves stole catalytic converters from two different cars in his household. In recent years, there were hundreds of catalytic converter thefts in Palo Alto. Some residents have had their converters stolen multiple times, costing thousands of dollars. This includes residents who have paid several hundreds more to have converter shields installed, in a vain attempt to prevent subsequent theft. [1] Due to supply chain shortages, some people had to wait several months to get new converters, which left them unable to drive their cars. This is not an infrequent issue in Palo Alto, and it is not trivial for those who are victimized. I'm not saying this one issue is sufficient to have ALPRs installed, but comments like yours distort the facts and mislead commenters who didn't read TFA. 1: https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/10/21/will-new-laws-stop-thieves-from-taking-your-catalytic-converter https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/10/21/will-new-laws-sto...

felipelemos 4y ago
> You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and then two thefts that have just happened. But the parent said just that in the third paragraph: > does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?
- gnicholas 4y ago
  GP starts off with the claim that this is 2 thefts across 40 years, and saying this is not a problem. The later portion you reference conflates citywide rates with incidents affecting a single resident. That is, no one would say that there wasn't a crime "spree" because none of the 20 people victimized was hit enough times to constitute a "spree". That word refers to the total number of incidents, not just the number of times a single resident was hit. His use of the word spree makes it seem as if only two converters were stolen across the whole city, which is of course untrue. Perhaps this was sloppy writing, but it seems more like he is trying to downplay the frequency and recency of these crimes.
salawat 4y ago
Sounds like a California overly strict emissions regulation problem created through the production of a leverage point (presence of Catalytic Converter = effectively able to participate in society through realizable freedom of movement) which is an undesirable side effect of the regulation. Who'da thunk it?

felipelemos 4y ago

> You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and then two thefts that have just happened. But the parent said just that in the third paragraph: > does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?

gnicholas 4y ago
GP starts off with the claim that this is 2 thefts across 40 years, and saying this is not a problem. The later portion you reference conflates citywide rates with incidents affecting a single resident. That is, no one would say that there wasn't a crime "spree" because none of the 20 people victimized was hit enough times to constitute a "spree". That word refers to the total number of incidents, not just the number of times a single resident was hit. His use of the word spree makes it seem as if only two converters were stolen across the whole city, which is of course untrue. Perhaps this was sloppy writing, but it seems more like he is trying to downplay the frequency and recency of these crimes.

salawat 4y ago

Sounds like a California overly strict emissions regulation problem created through the production of a leverage point (presence of Catalytic Converter = effectively able to participate in society through realizable freedom of movement) which is an undesirable side effect of the regulation. Who'da thunk it?