5 ms·

So they shame people before they've proven they've committed a crime? They are putting the neighborhood under surveillance? I appreciate the ingenuity, but th

So they shame people before they've proven they've committed a crime? They are putting the neighborhood under surveillance? I appreciate the ingenuity, but this is big brother-ish.

bonsaitree 17y ago
Technically speaking, the residence is being accused of an infraction, not a crime. It's akin to a parking ticket. As I've noted in my earlier comment, the "jig" is up with this procedure the minute the infraction is fought in court and a single precedent is established in case law.
- jsteele 17y ago
  The residence is being accused? Residences can commit crimes/infractions?
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Which is why they'd never use it anywhere they'd expect the targets to have a reaction beyond helpless apprehension at the cops parking in front of their house - ie, no white suburbs.
pbhjpbhj 17y ago
Yeah, if there are reports of criminal activities the cops should stay away and not look at what's going on, dam those meddling cops stopping criminals from doing their deals. </sarcasm> Presumably you'd like patroling officers to be fitted with blindfolds to avoid them surveilling people from the street?
- erso 17y ago
  The surveillance footage is rarely reviewed by the police and is saved for just a short time before it is erased.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    A trusting lot you are.
    - pbhj 17y ago
      Because the police are going to find hours of footage of the front of a house exciting? Hey look in this one he comes out with the trash. Wow, here he's cleaning the front yard - bet we can sell this to Hollywood.
- dkarl 17y ago
  The problem is that this is designed specifically for when police don't want to do their job. They believe the people are "bad" and engaged in undesirable activity, but they can't be bothered to investigate and gather evidence of criminal activity. Instead, they want to make their lives miserable, on the principle that the threat of surveillance bothers the guilty, but not the innocent. And any sweet old lady can tag someone as a "bad element" who needs to be driven out of town. If that's what we want, then we don't need police in the first place. We just need close-knit communities where good old boys are eager to enforce the nervous prejudices of the community using violence and intimidation. Don't get me wrong; I'm a quiet, boring person who detests littering. I wouldn't be a target for this kind of operation. But we already know the hazards of this kind of justice. We've been there, done that, and moved on.
  - bharris 17y ago
    In the article, the police claimed to have tried all other methods of 'traditional' policing before resorting to the truck: "In the summer of 2006, police were brainstorming ways to rattle a suspected drug dealer. They had exhausted traditional strategies, including undercover operations, and were left empty-handed and frustrated. They decided to park a retired police car in front of the suspect's house."
    - chrischen 17y ago
      That's how the idea started. Afterwards they used it to scare off the lady's grandchildren when she went on vacation.
      - nonrecursive 17y ago
        I don't see what's wrong with asking the police to help protect your house from vandalism, even if you are on vacation. The kind of behavior this old lady's kids were engaged in was illegal, and the police helped solve the problem in a cost-effective way. Where's the problem?
        17y ago
kqr2 17y ago
Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a surveillance society either, however, that may be preferable to rampant crime -- especially if it's the crime where you fear for your safety. At that point, though, moving is probably the better alternative. Perhaps public surveillance needs to be conducted like a search warrant and subject to public discussion. It should automatically expire after a certain amount of time. Also, the evidence can only be used for intended purposes. Police should not be allowed to spy on people indiscriminately.

So they shame people before they've proven they've committed a crime? They are putting the neighborhood under surveillance? I appreciate the ingenuity, but this is big brother-ish.

bonsaitree 17y ago

Technically speaking, the residence is being accused of an infraction, not a crime. It's akin to a parking ticket. As I've noted in my earlier comment, the "jig" is up with this procedure the minute the infraction is fought in court and a single precedent is established in case law.

jsteele 17y ago
The residence is being accused? Residences can commit crimes/infractions?
Semiapies 17y ago
Which is why they'd never use it anywhere they'd expect the targets to have a reaction beyond helpless apprehension at the cops parking in front of their house - ie, no white suburbs.

pbhjpbhj 17y ago

Yeah, if there are reports of criminal activities the cops should stay away and not look at what's going on, dam those meddling cops stopping criminals from doing their deals. </sarcasm> Presumably you'd like patroling officers to be fitted with blindfolds to avoid them surveilling people from the street?

erso 17y ago
The surveillance footage is rarely reviewed by the police and is saved for just a short time before it is erased.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  A trusting lot you are.
  - pbhj 17y ago
    Because the police are going to find hours of footage of the front of a house exciting? Hey look in this one he comes out with the trash. Wow, here he's cleaning the front yard - bet we can sell this to Hollywood.
dkarl 17y ago
The problem is that this is designed specifically for when police don't want to do their job. They believe the people are "bad" and engaged in undesirable activity, but they can't be bothered to investigate and gather evidence of criminal activity. Instead, they want to make their lives miserable, on the principle that the threat of surveillance bothers the guilty, but not the innocent. And any sweet old lady can tag someone as a "bad element" who needs to be driven out of town. If that's what we want, then we don't need police in the first place. We just need close-knit communities where good old boys are eager to enforce the nervous prejudices of the community using violence and intimidation. Don't get me wrong; I'm a quiet, boring person who detests littering. I wouldn't be a target for this kind of operation. But we already know the hazards of this kind of justice. We've been there, done that, and moved on.
- bharris 17y ago
  In the article, the police claimed to have tried all other methods of 'traditional' policing before resorting to the truck: "In the summer of 2006, police were brainstorming ways to rattle a suspected drug dealer. They had exhausted traditional strategies, including undercover operations, and were left empty-handed and frustrated. They decided to park a retired police car in front of the suspect's house."
  - chrischen 17y ago
    That's how the idea started. Afterwards they used it to scare off the lady's grandchildren when she went on vacation.
    - nonrecursive 17y ago
      I don't see what's wrong with asking the police to help protect your house from vandalism, even if you are on vacation. The kind of behavior this old lady's kids were engaged in was illegal, and the police helped solve the problem in a cost-effective way. Where's the problem?
      - 17y ago

kqr2 17y ago

Yes, I wouldn't want to live in a surveillance society either, however, that may be preferable to rampant crime -- especially if it's the crime where you fear for your safety. At that point, though, moving is probably the better alternative. Perhaps public surveillance needs to be conducted like a search warrant and subject to public discussion. It should automatically expire after a certain amount of time. Also, the evidence can only be used for intended purposes. Police should not be allowed to spy on people indiscriminately.