3 ms·
At least in the US this sort of thing is understandable--if the person is telling the truth it's usually not a big deal, if they're a scammer it substantially e
by LorenPechtel 3y ago
At least in the US this sort of thing is understandable--if the person is telling the truth it's usually not a big deal, if they're a scammer it substantially elevates the offense. Thus scammers are unlikely to be willing to file the police report.
Insurance companies often do the same thing--it's not about catching crooks, it's about making lying much higher risk.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> At least in the US this sort of thing is understandable–if the person is telling the truth it’s usually not a big deal …says someone who doesn’t understand the experience of community–law-enforcement relations in lots of communities in the US.
- haswell 3y agoI think the point here is that filing a truthful police report about a stolen item isn’t going to get you in trouble. This has nothing to do with other systemic issues that are off-topic here.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> I think the point here is that filing a truthful police report about a stolen item isn’t going to get you in trouble. > This has nothing to do with other systemic issues that are off-topic here. And I rather think my point was that the “other systemic issues” are not off-topic here because they are why police interaction as a reporter/victim is not, and even more relevantly here is not perceived to be risk-free in a number of less-socially-privileged segments of society, and that policies which impose mandatory law enforcement interactions are (and are known to be by firms adopting them) effective means of disincentivizing engagement with whatever function is gatekept by those policies from people in those communities, not merely excluding “scammers”.