Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Police allow car break-ins to become a Seattle growth industry (seattletimes.com)
240 points by kirillzubovsky on Nov 2, 2014 | hide | past | favorite | 144 comments



I used to commute between Manhattan to Stamford. A 5AM train would take me up and an 8, 9 or 10PM would haul me back. Staying awake for the duration of the return journey was rare. This led to curiosities: going to sleep in Stamford and waking up, four hours later, in Stamford again (Sartre had nothing on this fate) because you slept through arriving and then re-departing from Grand Central. Or waking up phoneless.

I lost my phone a few times. I have a habit of lolling over when dozing on trains. This encourages my polished iPhone to slip out. The Metro-North line tours a wide socioeconomic spectrum. I understand the temptation I was taunting some of my fellow passengers with.

Most of the time the opportunists were savvy enough to turn off the radio. Not always. Once I saw my phone blinking in from Rye. I stopped at their police station and showed the officer my iPad. Without question, we were on our way. The address I pinpointed resulted in a mother subjecting her son to an Inquisition. Nothing came of it. We apologised. Copper suggested we try the house across the street. Embarrassed from the last encounter, I demurred. He walked up to the door.

A young man answered and yes: he had an iPhone. A few minutes later, I was (mentally) $650 richer. (I went back to the lady at the first house with a bottle of wine and the local bookstore's encyclopaedia of steamships—he had boat models in his room).

New York City and State get a lot of shit for our police forces. And yes, we have a high frequency of idiocy. But swinging the other way, towards ineffectual policing—as Seattle appears to have—doesn't create strong societies. +1 New York.


I used to take Metro-North from New Rochelle down to Grand Central, and I miss it so much. Four trains an hour during the rush, always arriving within a minute or two of schedule. The 8:03 Amtrak between Baltimore and DC hasn't been on time in two weeks. As for the wide socieconomic spectrum--the only thing that ever bothered me about the crowd on MNR was the drunk suburban kids that'd take the 1am with me Saturday morning. Nothing like coming home from a long day at work and having some 19 year old Westchester brat puke all over the floor.


This is the flip side of the new powers granted to police under laws such as the Patriot Act. Yes, they have more power than ever before to spy on you. No, they won't arrest criminals, even after you have tracked down the criminals yourself. The government needs expanded powers so it can spy on you, not the criminals. Certain classes of criminals are high profile (drug dealers!) and there is a certain prestige in getting them, so the government is happy to go after them. But if we are talking about ordinary criminals, then the government can't be bothered.

This is the flip side of increasing police powers: the police are increasingly immune to criticism, so they are increasingly lazy about going after the kinds of criminals that ordinary people actually care about.


> the new powers granted to police under laws such as the Patriot Act. Yes, they have more power than ever before to spy on you. No, they won't arrest criminals, even after you have tracked down the criminals yourself. The government needs expanded powers so it can spy on you, not the criminal

Surely it's possible to use the same database collecting info on Patriot Act violations to sift through and report on petty crimes also, even predict where and to/by whom they might happen? If the police won't do it then surely there's someone out there who could hack into the machines running the algorithms for such terrorism and high profile crime prediction to do the same for car breakins?


>If the police won't do it then surely there's someone out there who could hack into the machines running the algorithms for such terrorism and high profile crime prediction to do the same for car breakins?

you were sane right up until you hit NCIS hacker territory.


Take care of the small stuff and the big stuff will take care of itself.

The broken windows theory is a criminological theory of the norm-setting and signaling effect of urban disorder and vandalism on additional crime and anti-social behavior. The theory states that maintaining and monitoring urban environments in a well-ordered condition may stop further vandalism and escalation into more serious crime[1].

From the article: There also was no proof who did the smash-and-grab, so even if [the police] had come, it would have been tricky to charge them with anything.

That's hogwash. Possession of stolen property is a criminal offence in Washington State[2].

The crime and disorder in downtown Seattle is shocking, even to people from other big cities[3]. In 2013, Seattle had 2,356 property crimes per 100,000 population[4]. By comparison, New York City had a property crime rate of just 795 per 100,000[5].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_windows_theory

[2] http://www.avvo.com/legal-guides/ugc/possession-stolen-prope...

[3] http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2021696782_westneat28...

[4] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/p...

[5] http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/p...


Just yesterday in the civic center area here in SF I'm getting a sandwich and this mentally ill (or really high, or both) bum lady walks into the shop and proceeds to howl at the top of her lungs for 10 minutes, dance around the shop, kick down a bunch of seats. Right next to her is a hole in the wall punched by some other mentally infirm person that same day.

Nothing. The staff is used to it, I'm used to it, the other patrons are used to it, we just let them do their thing and hope they don't throw anything at us in the process. This is right on Market St, you'd think the city would be proud of its downtown.

What am I supposed to do as a resident? I'm not a cop, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a psychiatrist, I can't fix this. I'm just a guy who gives away something like half of his income in taxes and it's not clear what's happening to all that cash. If we're going to keep this place in an embarrassing state, I would at least like some of my money back.


Plenty of other cities have this problem http://www.straight.com/news/714781/mental-health-arrests-va...

Severely mentally ill and violent people wandering the streets, committing rampant property crime to feed drug habits which make them even more unstable.


Whatever you do in manner of becoming vocal about such dysfunctions, attending SFPD meetings, building support for ballot measures by getting the community involved and other efforts to address dysfunction, graft and full blown corruption in the city's affairs ... whatever else you do

  Please Do Not Leave The City
Set down roots here if you want to change the way this city functions and lives.

If you can, own a home ( I know that is asking a lot in the current climate ). Home ownership is key to instilling a sense of belonging to the city. This is one of the areas in which, the gay population of Castro has succeeded mightily. Good for them.

If you just pick up your things and leave - like previous middle class residents of SF have done, to Oakland or even beyond - this city will never change.

This city needs sensible people.

[1] SFPD Police Commission Agenda Calendar

http://www.sf-police.org/meeting.aspx?page=4434


As I understand current SF politics, trying to change things makes you the subject of hatred and protests. Not an encouraging set of results.


How can this possibly be?

How is it possible for the leftists to have an absolute stranglehold on San Francisco politics, especially for so long?

Is there not even a moderate wing, here?


Like most any place, the people were there first see themselves as priviledged and those who come later as undeserving. In SF, this takes the form of "natives" and "techies".

Left and right is the wrong way to look at it.


> What am I supposed to do as a resident?

Vote to repeal Prop 13 when the opportunity arises, and tell others to do the same.

At some point, polling will indicate that it has a chance of happening, and then someone will put it on the ballot.


How would raising property taxes stop homeless people from acting belligerently in public?


It would pay for better homeless care and more, higher-quality police officers.


Ah, another of those "let's throw more money at the problem, and maybe that'll fix it" people.

Firstly: the City has no shortage of money. The City's budget this year is a whopping $8.6 Billion dollars. For a city of 850,000 people, that's quite a lot.

Secondly: the City already spends a lot on homelessness; the direct spending per homeless person exceeds $12,000/year. There are task forces galore on this problem, and nothing makes a dent.

Thirdly: SFPD is already among the highest paid in the country. Rookie officers can make more than $100K/year with overtime. There is no accountability; and they'd rather shoot than treat a mentally ill person properly: http://www.vice.com/read/most-of-the-people-killed-by-the-sa...

And finally: this "throw more money without accountability" approach is a part of the problem. It provides an economic incentive to do a shitty job, because hey, doing a bad job gets more money!!


"The City's budget this year is a whopping $8.6 Billion dollars. For a city of 850,000 people, that's quite a lot."

Seriously!?

/me heads to the googles


It looks like that is indeed the case://openbook.sfgov.org/openbooks/cgi-bin/cognosisapi.dll?b_action=cognosViewer&ui.action=run&ui.object=%2fcontent%2ffolder%5b%40name%3d%27Reports%27%5d%2freport%5b%40name%3d%27Budget%27%5d&ui.name=20Budget&run.outputFormat=&run.prompt=false


$10,000 per person? That's more than a third of the annual income per person for that state. Wow.


But not for people in the city.. SF County is the 2nd wealthiest in the state and gets significant tax revenue from tourists (via Sales taxes, Hotel taxes, etc.).


Just checking but what would you do?


Admittedly I don't know much about this, but it remains to be seen whether this is an issue that stems from the city not having enough money. Fascinating how this is somewhat reminiscent of the whole education discussion we've had for years: schools need more money vs schools are terrible at allocating money correctly.


You live in San Francisco, what do you expect? When was it last a normal city?


Are you suggesting that the police need to intervene if someone is howling at the top of their lungs and kicking seats? Did they do any damage?

Your attitude is the reason people with mental health issues often are reluctant to seek help. Because they are stigmatized, and mental health is quickly becoming criminalized.


Unnecessary staw man, you're putting words in my mouth, I did not ask for a police intervention or criminalization. I'm happy for this situation to be resolved in whatever most humane and compassionate way possible. I'm in no position to propose solutions, as I don't have any expertise in this field.

I would however love to feel safe when being outside of my apartment, instead of wondering if one of these dozens of visibly infirm people I pass by on the way to anything is about to assault me or do something else completely unpredictable to me.


People with a mental health problem are far more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence.

Most violent crime is not committed by people with a mental illness.

While I appreciate the concern you show for the piss-poor inhumane brutal lack of treatment your country provides to those with a mental illness (despite spending more per capita on health) it'd be nice if you could do it without stigmatising mental ill-health.


I appreciate what you're trying to say, but he's not talking about a random sampling of mentally ill people. He's talking about a person that's kicking a bunch of seats around and generally indicating a potential for violence. Whether or not we're talking about mental illness, we're talking about someone that's current being violent.


There's a clear extrapolation from that one person being violent[1] to the idea that people with mental illness are in general violent.

> Right next to her is a hole in the wall punched by some other mentally infirm person that same day.

BadassFractal didn't witness that, but assumes it was done by someone with a mental health problem rather than someone who's just an angry arsehole.

> I would however love to feel safe when being outside of my apartment, instead of wondering if one of these dozens of visibly infirm people I pass by on the way to anything is about to assault me

This is directly linking mental ill health to violence, and it's just as abhorrent as linking violent crime to African Americans.

Those visibly infirm people are far more likely to be the victims, not perpetrators, of violence -- even if you remove self-inflicted violence.

[1] to property, not as far as I know to people.

EDIT: http://depts.washington.edu/mhreport/facts_violence.php

> - "Although studies suggest a link between mental illnesses and violence, the contribution of people with mental illnesses to overall rates of violence is small, and further, the magnitude of the relationship is greatly exaggerated in the minds of the general population (Institute of Medicine, 2006)."

> - "…the vast majority of people who are violent do not suffer from mental illnesses (American Psychiatric Association, 1994)."

> - "The absolute risk of violence among the mentally ill as a group is very small. . . only a small proportion of the violence in our society can be attributed to persons who are mentally ill (Mulvey, 1994)."

> -"People with psychiatric disabilities are far more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violent crime (Appleby, et al., 2001). People with severe mental illnesses, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder or psychosis, are 2 ½ times more likely to be attacked, raped or mugged than the general population (Hiday, et al.,1999)."

> The effects of stigma and discrimination are profound. The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health found that, “Stigma leads others to avoid living, socializing, or working with, renting to, or employing people with mental disorders - especially severe disorders, such as schizophrenia. It leads to low self-esteem, isolation, and hopelessness. It deters the public from seeking and wanting to pay for care. Responding to stigma, people with mental health problems internalize public attitudes and become so embarrassed or ashamed that they often conceal symptoms and fail to seek treatment (New Freedom Commission, 2003).”


OK. So now the question is "What can we do to help, given that there's already lots of money sloshing around"?

Rather than lecture on what not to do, what do you propose as steps towards resolving these problems?


"don't stigmatise people with a mental illness" is the call to action.

Stigma prevents people getting help, even for mild MH problems that respond well to talking therapy. Stigma increases social isolation and reduces opportunities for work. We know that both of these make mental illness worse.


Respectfully, I don't see how this is actionable for me as an individual. Ok, I'm not stigmatizing people with mental illness, now what?

I still have hundreds, if not more people, with mental illness roaming downtown, living on the streets, regularly leaving feces on sidewalks, screaming at passerbys and expressing what appears violent behavior and nothing is being done about it.


I can't fix your police or healthcare systems, and I do appreciate that it sucks if you have people behaving unpredictably around you. We do need to remember that if they have a mental illness then they're probably not living on the streets out of choice, and that if they had affordable meds and healthcare you would be seeing a lot less people on the street.

What I can do is to ask you to not assume that violent behaviour is a result of a mental health problem; or to not assume that a person with a mental illness is going to be violent. (Apparently I can do that more politely than I have so far.)


I disagree. It's a negative step - don't do X, for some value of X. OK. Fine. What's next? I asked in search of positive steps.


Tackling stigma is a positive step. I don't know why you don't get that. It is more than just "don't do x".

You're just arguing about words.

"Don't discriminate against people with a mental illness when recruiting for a job" becomes "give people with a mental illness the same treatment at job interviews".

But if you want a bigger list:

Reform the broken healthcare model in the US

Push for evidence based treatment. This will usually be a short course of CBT; sometimes it'll be a talking therapy and meds. Sometimes it'll be meds and talking therapies and weekly / monthly visits from a nurse or an occupational therapist. Rarely it'll be a stay in hospital. Even more rarely it'll be a forced stay in hospital against the patient's wishes. Even more rarely it'll be a forensic hospitalisation - a forced stay in hospital ordered by the courts instead of a prison stay.

Push for employment programmes to get people with a mental illness back into employment. See for example the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health documents http://www.centreformentalhealth.org.uk/pdfs/dwp_commissioni...

Push for social inclusion programmes; volunteer for those programmes;

San Francisco has a death by suicide rate of 9.8 per 100,000. There is probably some work to do around funding suicide prevention work (which happens earlier than a suicide attempt) and funding suicide intervention (which happens around the time of an attempt). http://www.sfhip.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=NS-Indicato...


Find me a qualified candidate who can function in my workplace, and there won't be any discrimination issues. That doesn't mean I'm going to tolerate the sort of acting out described above. I can and do regularly work with the mentally ill, but I'm not about to go recruiting amongst the homeless in hopes of finding a skilled software engineer.

"Reform the broken model" is a positive, actionable step in the same way that "Change the culture!" is a positive, actionable step. Which is to say it's a statement of a goal rather than anything immediately useful. But more "arguing about words", right?

You shouldn't cite the suicide rate without context. Following your link, SF is doing better than average in California.


I gave context to the suicide rate by linking the page I did which clearly shows the San Francisco has met the target of less than 10 people per 100,000 dying by suicide, with a little green dial.

But suicide is still a significant cause of death, especially for middle aged men, even in San Francisco.


I don't know why you don't get "violent behavior in public is not acceptable". We'll never be satisfied with "its ok to hurt people if you're part of a stigmatized subgroup". Its not ok. Its not going to be ok, and its not stigmatizing to recognize violent offender in public - its reality. They need to be stopped, period.


I haven't said that violence is acceptable. I'm not sure how you could come to that conclusion, so could you point out where I said it?

What I have said is that when you see violence in public you should not assume the perpetrator has a mental illness because they probably don't; and when you see someone with a mental illness you should not think that they are violent, because they probably aren't.

I can understand the downvotes for tone - it's too late to edit so I'm stuck with those.

I can't understand the downvotes for this post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8548999

Edit: downvoters - please let me know why you're downvoting my later posts.


I got it from a repeated ignoring of the basic issue, and an attempt to redirect the conversation away from the topic. That's pretty close to denial.

And I'd have to disagree - anyone who is acting out in public has certainly got some mental problem, pretty much by definition. Whether its a persistent illness is between them and their doctor. But from the coffee shop's point of view, they gotta be dealt with, period.


I don't think so. I think they're suggesting that there is a torrent of cash pouring into the city's coffers and negative progress to show for it. It's either systemic corruption, or incompetence on a galactic scale. Either way I agree. I want my money back.


sf is the same -- the city is a dump, and people there tolerate a level of misbehavior from the street trash that is stunning. One of them attempted to kill my so by chasing her around a parked car with a screwdriver trying to stab her while a bunch of sf asshole pedestrians crossed the street to avoid getting involved. In the middle of the afternoon. We came from nyc and stuff like this -- and it's far from the only incident -- wasn't tolerated.


New York can also manage to win a World Series without allowing the city to be taken over for the night by violent, destructive mobs. That's because they have a much better funded, and well-run, police force.


A friend of mine in Washington DC can go down to a public park where they have movie night in the summer, and with a bunch of random people they can openly drink wine and enjoy a movie outside without incident.

Every time they have temporarily relaxed drinking laws to try something similar here like DC movie night it resulted in brawling, stabbings, street hobos showing up to scream gibberish and aggressively pan handle, and the audience got so wrecked ambulances had to be called. It's like the heavy regulations that the West Coast cities screws into society creates a community that turns to bedlam the moment those chains are temporarily removed.


It's not funding. It's the relative power of unions. In California, a cop costs $200k a year, when pensions and health care are factored in.


That's not true at all. California cops can make $200k a year cash just with overtime and incentives. Including pension schemes and other benefits, it's common for mid-career CA cops to make upwards of $500k.

Consider that 25 year CHP officers can collect lifetime pensions at the highest pay, including overtime accumulated from previous years and cashed out. At a US inflation adjusted bond discount rate of 0-1% typical over the past decade and usual life expectancy tables, that adds up to 1.5-3 extra years of pay in pension benefits for each year of service. That's computed according to what you'd have to put into a 401(k) to pay for the pension; the state of California is putting somewhat less into CalPERS and hoping to get bailed out by private sector taxpayers or the Federal Government someday. (CA isn't doing as badly as MA or IL or some others on pension funding, though)

NYC is paying much more rationally and budgeting better than other big city and coastal governments which is one reason there are enough cops there to keep order.


>Including pension schemes and other benefits, it's common for mid-career CA cops to make upwards of $500k.

Could you provide a source for this? I checked the salary database for the city and county of San Francisco and, while there were 2099 people in the police department with total pay over $100,000, nobody had total pay of $500,000 - and the maximum was $345,000.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/databases/?appSession=45847910566...


Base salaries are often only $100k but then generous vacation compensation, incentives, 2x and 3x overtime, and such bring it close to $200k. Gold plated health and other benefits often bring current compensation for CA cops (CHP, BART, SF, &c) over $200k.

Then generous pensions kick in. CA cops and firemen usually get full pensions after 20-25 years but the pension is paid not just on salary but a multiple of final year vacation and comp time. Pensions can be 2x-3.5x final 'base' salary and higher than any overtime adjusted salary. CalPERS is hoping for 5% above inflation returns but for a decade has made about 1%. At 1%, you essentially have to save or take on future liability for the whole pension during working life. No private employer provides these benefits after 20-25 years or on this basis at all because it would mean bankruptcy.

Public finance allows it so the total compensation of a cop getting $200k in salary, adjustments, and benefits is often over $500k all in. Some of that will be the bankruptcy and bailout.

Google "Vallejo firefighter bankruptcy" for details of CA's future public safety service.


Maybe from working side jobs? Most police departments offer a ton of various side jobs. Be it renting out officers to basically do security for various businesses, or working at understaffed or undesirable locations. These jobs usually pay really well, sometimes between 60-80 dollars an hour.

I have no clue if this extra pay would be shown in city salary databases, but I wouldn't be surprised if not.


Those figures made me realize how incredibly skewed the income distribution in the US must be, police in Germany is payed pretty much the same everywhere and nowhere near that much, especially patrol officers.


public unions are a scam. Who exactly are you negotiating against? Oh yeah, the taxpayer.


I'm not sure about that. I don't know about SF, but in many other CA cities, they have plenty of positions open, but are having trouble finding qualified candidates. Being in law enforcement is not very appealing.


How much does one cost in NYC?


How much ya got?


Downvoting comments like that is pointless and should be banned.


"attempted to kill my so by chasing her around a parked car with a screwdriver trying to stab her while a bunch of sf asshole pedestrians crossed the street to avoid"

If any of them had tried to help, the police that didn't care about your so would have been plenty eager to destroy the life of a middle class citizen for so much as jostling the attacker. There's no point in blaming them when they're terrified of what the authorities will do to a do-gooder.


Urban decay refers to buildings and infrastructure falling apart. That is not happening in downtown Seattle. It seems you are using the term to refer to scary-looking people.


Nah, you're thinking of downtown Tacoma. The University of Washington is picking up the tab for a lot of the restoration, but it still on a multi-decade time table.


The problem with anecdotes like in [3] is that they don't really tell us much. I visited Seattle for the first time this fall and my experience was nothing like that. I did smell Marijuana once in public, but, otherwise, the streets were quite clean and I never felt unsafe downtown at night. The homeless were prevalent, but not on the scale you see in, say, San Francisco. I certainly wouldn't use the word "shocking" to describe anything I saw.


The broken windows theory is not accurate and is extremely controversial in its implementations. Moreover, the kinds of things broken windows fallacy argues against are not petty theft, but things involving infrastructure and the status of neighborhoods.


Its a stereotypical urban vs suburban vs rural thing. Its only new in the sense of it being hip to live in urban areas. Always been this way.

There has always been a different social contract between the cops and each social class. The cops have no idea why an urban person is calling them because if they're upper class they are rich so they don't care and a normal personal assistant isn't going to go all batman and hunt down thieves, and if they're poor then they have their own ethnic / gang type of ways to fix this in addition to deep seated victim shaming (she was asking for it, what kind of idiot leaves her purse in a car in an urban area, etc). The urban cops just don't know what to think about middle class people, or middle class outlooks on policing.

In the burbs they'd do exactly what the author was expecting, dispatch a squad, take care of business. In a rural area they wouldn't have a crime like this, but something similar would be handled like the burb example. There's a social contract and developed protocols and expectations and it would all be OK.

Not saying its right or wrong, just saying its a fact that pioneers skeletons always end up having arrows sticking outta their backs.


I agree with your point that that's the way things go in the city. I've lived in 4 major US cities in my life, and the cops respond to some things and don't respond to others. It's generally a numbers game. I also agree that in the suburbs and rural areas, the numbers work in the favor of the local police.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean in regards to the the ethnic / gang type way of fixing things in poor neighborhoods.

Also, I'm not sure if you've been to Seattle. I lived there for two years, recently. I wouldn't really call Seattle ethnic, gang-type, or poor.


I don't understand this story. Why wouldn't the police do anything? If I'm an officer who's motivated by helping others, it's a clear way to do that. If I'm motivated by a desire for justice, easy way to promote that. If I'm motivated by power, I can go take down the thieves and bring them down a notch.

Perhaps one explanation is that the police get enough zany people calling in about enough zany things that they don't take any info from ordinary people seriously because it's that unreliable. But not sure if I even buy this explanation myself.

Anybody with good knowledge of police workings have insight into why things happen like they do in the linked article?


The police are motivated by being safe – actually dealing with criminals is dangerous, so the police are motivated to avoid them.

http://www.cracked.com/article_21830_cops-wont-help-you-7-th...


Sure, the problem fundamentally boils down to this: what the police think their jobs are seems to be diverging from what the public at large think on many, many issues.


That's a great Cracked article, one of my favorites. But one guy's perspective on a couple of cops in one specific incident is hardly conclusive. If being safety is what motivates you, there are more sensible career paths than policing.


But there are no career paths that offer the same amount of power and authority at the lowest level as being a police officer does. That is a powerful attractor for the power hungry, but once they have the power, they have absolutely no incentive to risk their personal safety.


Most police are motivated by none of these things. Policing is a job. Depending on how career-oriented they are, they want to be promoted or they want not to be fired. And chasing down petty criminals that they probably don't have enough evidence to charge is not helping their stats, which is all that matters in either case.


Although individual discretion probably has some influence, this seems more like a policy issue.


I have a friend who works in the records department of the San Mateo shariff's office. She's on the graveyard shift, which is slow, and they're constantly getting crazy calls about all manner of things.

It wouldn't surprise me if there were policies or protocols around when reported information is considered actionable considering all the silly stories I've heard about loonies calling the local PD.


Long ago, living with my brother in an Atlanta suburb, his car was broken into and the stereo was stolen overnight.

Before we even woke up in the morning, the police were knocking at our door.

They'd caught the thieves, sitting in some office park parking lot at night with all their loot. The cops didn't know what they were up to, just that they were where no one was supposed to be, so they pulled up to talk to them. They arrested them and made them ride in the police car showing where they'd stolen everything from. All before my brother even knew it was stolen.

They were convicted, my brother got his stereo back, and restitution checks that totaled more than the damage to his car.

Life in suburbia does have benefits.


I'm sure they do, but is "my iPhone was stolen, and the GPS tracker says it's at X" still a crazy call by a loonie in 2014?


What incentive do the police have to actually help anyone? The police chief answers to the mayor, but everyone else in the department is pretty much unaccountable. Have a complaint about your PD's conduct? Great, fill out this complaint form so that they can file it away.

Unfortunately, police work isn't really appealing to your typical idealist who wants to better his/her community, so appealing to officers' sense of morality/duty won't work. This line of work is much more attractive to former high school bullies who want to carry a service weapon and wield power. That and lazy civil servants who won't lift a finger unless it's for overtime.

And the cream of the crop, those officers who rise in the ranks and guide department policy, are the ass-kissers who figure out how to make police work easier, not more effective. This story comes as no surprise to me.


My interactions have generally been limited. Three or four traffic tickets, with a couple of warnings. An interview after I was held up at gunpoint, a conversation with a county cop who evaluated our townhouse for security. All, even the ones giving me tickets, were polite.

I get the impression that the HN crowd interacts with those of who end up working as cops or firemen not a whole hell of a lot. Did you go to school with cops' and firemen's kids?


This is a silly op ed piece designed to generate outrage based on a single, biased, anecdotal incident. The Seattle media, from kiro to the stranger, has devolved to this on just about every issue. Whether the issue is crime, urban planning, or bike lanes its much easier to generate their pennies from outrage than actually reporting on a substantive issues. By reading these "stories" we do nothing but reinforce the negative feedback loop.

If single sourced anecdotal evidence is all we need I'll share mine: In the past two years my house has been broken in to once & prowled twice (that I know of). My car has been broken in to twice. My neighbors cars have been broken in to three times, at least. In every incident Seattle PD have been on scene within 7 to 15 minutes. Reports after the fact usually get a single car/officer. In progress has been multiple cars boxing in a sweeping the neighborhood. As I recall canine has come out twice to try and track perpetrators on foot. For the home burglary the responding officer spent about an hour walking the scene, taking photos, and trying to recover prints. Dispatch and responding officers have never been anything less than responsive, courteous, and professional. But that's not enticing link bait, is it?

Edit: The plethora of downvotes without comment are fun. Do you object to my characterization of seattle media as "link bait" or posting my own anecdotal incidents?

For context this is my neighborhood: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/24/shooting-suspect-in... http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/18/police-arrest-man-f...


So police kept showing up. Did any of that policing actually solve anything? Sounds like a ridiculously high amount of crime for one person in two years.


No. And even if it had led to conviction every time I personally dont believe it would have solved anything either. However the main story is explicitly about our police departments lack of "appropriate" reaction. And so my own anecdote is explicitly about response and reaction, not results.

With regards to the high crime rate maybe Im just lucky. Some of those incidents had overlap, like both my car and the neighbors. It's totaled about 5 calls in the past two years. The city of Seattle does a good job on publishing crime & emergency services data in a timely manner. You're welcome to browse from the original source or a number of third parties. For reference my neighborhood is "Beacon Hill" bordering "Rainier Valley", south of I90. http://www.seattle.gov/police/crime/onlinecrimemaps.htm


This is sure to be an unpopular opinion, but convictions and meaningful sentences would likely have a positive affect. If there are only trivial consequences to crime, then rational actors will be more willing to commit them. If there are bigger consequences, they will be less likely to commit them. Moreover, if the criminal is in jail; there is a period of time they are taken out of circulation.


You can try to forward links to this article to all the current + future politicians that is running in that area - anyone that is running for City, County, State, Congress - CC a few the reporters in the area and asked for statements from them on see what their responses, CC the head of police in the mailing list also and CC dispatcher's name / email if possible.

From time to time, post their responses on some public forums.

My mom has accident in Sacramento downtown uneven sidewalk once, bruise pretty badly. Her doctor take care of her. I just email the city manager + couple elective officials 's public email addresses. I got 10+ follow up emails from various folks in couple day and the issue was fixed in a few days.


If it were a celebrity or any other high-profile citizen, you know they would bring out the SWAT team and the criminals would be locked up for 20 years.

But, when it's a "nobody important" tax paying citizen, then go f-yourself.

Congrats goes out to everyone who voted in the current representatives.

Wonderful job.


>Congrats goes out to everyone who voted in the current representatives.

Perhaps there are more fundamental issues than "people voted for the wrong person". For example, there may be problems with the governmental structure itself, not just who populates the structure.


Do you really believe that voting in team A instead of team B would have helped ordinary citizens?


Yes, I believe that our republic is strengthened if, occasionally, "throw the bums out" occurs. Even if it results in "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".


Not always. See: 2010 Tea Party backlash to Obama.


Seattle has half the cops that some big cities have (20 per 10,000 residents). New York and Chicago have around 40, Boston 33.

http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/police-offi...


The level of public safety in a particular city frequently comes down to how much property tax its population is wiling to pay.


Property tax in King County is no joke; both percentage-wise and absolute costs. Real estate prices are very high here and taxes are not friendly, either (lack of state income tax is shifted elsewhere).

Spending two gazillion dollars on a stupid tunnel that is already going to cost 2x estimates is just another fine feature of this idiotic bureaucracy in my area.


Perhaps this is a also a growth opportunity for a private security firm. Call us, we will use our trained armed personnel to confront the suspects and return your stuff.

I would hope that it would not take too many incidents of private security 'resolving' issues to see that a police force doing its job is a far more preferred solution.


This idea is the basis for mafia and similar organizations the world over.


Individuals contracting private security firms is rarely cost effective: For armed response to be effective, they need to be fast. So the firm needs a high geographic concentration. If they achieve that, they have a monopoly and can charge what they want.

Paying collectively for security is much better.


I don't think it is legal to use deadly force to retrieve stolen goods, yours or anyone else's. You'd have to staff your firm with off duty cops or something to skirt that law.


You don't use deadly force to retrieve the stolen goods; you use regular force to retrieve them (at a level supported by your insurer, which is far below the limits of the law), and then use deadly force if the thieves threaten your life in the course of doing so.

(Even the police are not supposed to be using deadly force to apprehend property crimes; the justification for deadly force is officer safety or the safety of others.)


In some states, you can use deadly force to prevent someone from stealing your stuff.


But after they've stolen it you don't get to track them down and use deadly force to get your stuff back.


Just call Phoenix Jones!

Seriously, how much would you pay for private security to return your stolen iPhone?


Make it an insurance type of contract. Pay $9.95/mo and get your stuff back when it's stolen.


Home Invaders, call all home invaders, Seattle and big City USA.

0.) alleged the Police are out chasing bank robbers and allow car break-in

1.)why important? the new 'cartel' pays extra for your PERSONAL info for medical ID theft.

2.) the meth addicts who are up all night strike your mailbox to make sure they have a complete profile on U.

3.)since your garage door opener or home address allows the HOME INVADERS to get a copy of keys to your home.

4.) Mexican drug cartels have great stories they tell the neighbors, including pesticide pest control, lost cat animal control with uniforms, etc. when a gun is held to the head of your children, you will give up your pin, passwords to online bank accounts and combination number to the secret safe.

5.) USA citizens Trust the Police, especially the Detroit ones who never sent the rape kits to the lab. So, the serial criminals kept raping and home invading.

6.) This pattern is nationwide. Police never use the Internet. In Florida, the popular women fitness center car trunks break-ins target your wallet. Someone keeps an eye on you while you are exercising at the fitness center. The new master keys make it easy to take your WALLET, smartphone, HOME KEYS and even spare set of car keys.

Does this happen during the day in broad daylight, with visitors from out of town driving a 'rental car'?

when is your HOME INVADER going to invade?


Car prowl reports are generated by social networks in Seattle. Everything from Facebook groups to community based Twitter accounts and blogs. Most everyone here knows that the Police will do nothing so they have turned to a method that basically tells people when prowl rates are up in their neighborhood. I guess at least then they might have a chance to look up their insurance policy info ahead of potential breakin activity.


Washington is a conceal carry friendly state, I wonder how reporting an attempt at a citizens arrest would have changed the situation.

Here in Santa Cruz we have a very high property/lifestyle crime problem, thankfully the PD haven't given up, but the courts have made things here basically catch and release.

The story basically comes down to laziness on the part of the police. Seattle doesn't have the budget problems of Oakland where this same situation has basically been going on for a decade.


>Washington is a conceal carry friendly state, I wonder how reporting an attempt at a citizens arrest would have changed the situation.

This is a terrible idea. I'm about as pro 2nd amendment as you can get, but when you carry a concealed weapon your goal should always be to avoid a confrontation, not seek one out.

Getting your back iPhone isn't a life or death situation and you shouldn't use a firearm to resolve it. Also it's very likely you're going to jail if you shoot a guy while trying to make a citizens arrest.


> Washington is a conceal carry friendly state, I wonder how reporting an attempt at a citizens arrest would have changed the situation.

I'm a big believer in the Second Amendment. It's not about duck hunting. And in an ideal world what you suggest would be OK.

HOWEVER, we don't live in an ideal world. So IMO concealed carry is now about personal protection and not about retrieving stolen iPhones.


"It's not about duck hunting"

Yeah, it's about suppressing slave revolts.


It's about a lot of things, not just slave revolts. E.g. the whiskey rebellion:[1]

   [President] Washington responded by sending peace
   commissioners ... while at the same time calling on
   governors to send a militia force to enforce the tax.
   With 13,000 militia provided ...  Washington rode at
   the head of an army to suppress the insurgency
And also to help protect individual rights against an overbearing government. Of course now that we've been providing every small town sheriff with APCs and military weapons, that deterrent effect might no longer be as relevant as it once was.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion


I think you misunderstand the intent and extent of "citizens arrest." Trying to retrieve property by force looks a lot like armed robbery.

An individuals CPL status is nearly orthogonal to any armed confrontation. The police will arrest of you brandishing a weapon, CPL or not. Conversely if you use a firearm for self defense a CPL is irrelevant to the appropriate use of force. And in any offensive use of a weapon you will go to jail. Just the other week a homeless man down the street was arrested as he continued to shoot at two criminals after they were no longer a threat: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/18/police-arrest-man-f...


It seems like a day doesn't go by when I don't read an article like this one and think of NWA's succinct summary of police in America.


So 911 honestly believed the thieves were armed and dangerous and refused to dispatch? There's a lawsuit right there.

If they thought the victim was going to get shot, then you should have said, I am going right over there now to 123 Main Street to confront them in so-and-so colored car.

Then you wait and when the police show up at that car THEN you go over and make the theft claim.

Victim was entirely too polite with dispatch.


When this happened to my friend in Berkeley CA we called the police and after waiting almost an hour the officer that came didn't even get out of his car, he told us to file a report online. There was a security camera pointed at the lot which he said was "pointless" to try to access.


This is the kind of environment that leads to the creation of vigilante brigades and mafia-style syndicates.


I wish insurers could pay the direct costs of having state police (I think there's statewide jurisdiction for all law enforcement agencies in WA, but WSP would certainly have jurisdiction), bait cars, and some serious resolution/retribution here.


While a sad and interesting story, why is this on HN?


Probably the same reason it's making the rounds on Facebook at the moment. All else equal, this kind of website tends towards resharing/retweeting/upvoting identitiarian, political, and outrage type stories. The management does make an admirable effort to nudge it away from that, so a somewhat lower percentage of HN stories are in that category, but it's still quite a lot of them. (Also, it hits the "things of concern to affluent white American urbanites living in the U.S.'s somewhat dysfunctional cities" category, which is somewhat overrepresented here.)


There's an extremely strong bias toward urban living here on HN, and this is a fairly stereotypical "middle class person tries to move into the big city" story.


In addition to the 'urbanite high expectations outrage' factor, the clash is driven by a new technology: location tracking of stolen goods.

This leads to interesting hacker-cultural questions: How will policing adapt, if at all? Can more tech help?


I'm learning Javascript and the MEAN stack right now, and I'm really interested in building a small crowdsourced website for this.


The Seattle police lost a lawsuit about the ability to use overwhelming force:

http://crosscut.com/2014/10/20/law-justice/122409/judge-toss...

But they won't use any force against known criminals who are right in front of them.

Could the two be related? Especially because the "non-arrest" policy for break-ins appears to be recent.


Telling cops not to use overwhelming force is like telling white people not to use racial slurs, the good ones are 'oh ok' and the others, hoo boy.


Call up your local news stations and see if they can put some pressure on the police department?


What you do when dispatch refuses to help you? you suddenly remember perp was smoking pot and/or had a gun.

Or you could become an important politician. Couple of years ago whole police force of my country capital city was mobilised because member of parliament wifes car got stolen. Took them an hour to track it down using GSM triangulation (purse with phone in the car).

Guess what happens when you tell cops your car was stolen, but you have active tracker in it and can tell them where it is. Easier to get few big guys and deal with it yourself.


Again, the police are never there to help you.


I disagree, and I don't think hyperbole furthers the discussion. I've been helped by police in many cities (in America and elsewhere) on several occasions. I've also witnessed harassment, abuse of power, and indifference- fortunately less so than the former.


The above commenter stated "The police are never there to help you". as in, that it is not their purpose. Although I have no doubt you have encountered some police that went above and beyond their job description to help you, this does not change the fact that helping you is not their job, or purpose.


Many police cars used to have "To protect and serve" painted on their sides. I certainly remember that, although I haven't seen it in years.

No one is saying they expect the police to carry your groceries inside. They are law enforcement officers whose job description is to enforce laws. If they can't/wont' do that because of external factors, then citizens should be told the truth about why that is. Vigilantism comes from a sense of injustice, that the system doesn't work for unknown reasons. Without that transparency, we are left to fill that void in understanding with our imaginations.


Depends on what you mean. If you're referencing that law enforcement does not have a duty to protect citizens heres a citation for others http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html.

If you're saying that law enforcement will never render aid, thats prima facie incorrect.


What??? I thought that if marijuana was legalized in Washington, that the world would be a better place... Cops will be freed up to deal with "real crime" and people would magically be better citizens...

What could have gone wrong? Nearly all crime rates have gone up.


"Help! A van with license plate XXX-123 just shot at a guy in the parking lot here...hold on, what did you say...[muffled sound]...there's a badge on his belt, I think he's a cop from (insert adjacent town). I can still see the van, it just parked down the road at..."

You get the idea. Call it in from the nearest pay phone and leave. Guaranteed response.

I'd only do this if I lived in an area with a bunch of deadbeat cops. In MA our cops do their job without having to be tricked into doing it...the courts on the other hand seem to let everyone off.


This article is beyond stupid. The author spends a thousand words or more whining without once mentioning either budgets or civilian oversight of the police force. It's like the policy was created from thin fucking air, for no reason at all! A cursory googling found this:

   In the weeks before Monday's formal unveiling, McGinn released several 
   details of his 2012 proposal, which will now be scrutinized by the City 
   Council. Councilmembers, who will pass a final plan in November, have 
   already indicated they're leery of the mayor's idea to reduce the Seattle 
   Police Budget by $2.4 million by keeping 26 sworn officer positions vacant. [1]
Wow, is there a possibility that could be related? I actually don't know; I don't live in seattle and I don't really care. But a minimal amount of effort for his readers would be asking the police chief or PR person why this policy was created.

[1] http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/McGinn-budget-cuts-11...


I really hate to see blind hatred for the police on HN. It's a tough goddamn job, people, made all the more so by political pressure to improve statistics. As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, police are forced to focus on serious crimes and solvable crimes and avoid minor and unsolvable crimes. Nobody wants it to work that way, but departments are hammered when they bring down crime stats.

This story is pretty outrageous, but I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice. This could EASILY have led to a shootout. I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt than insist "police are never there to help you."


Blind hatred for police seems to stem from experience. My father said once (after I had a particularly horrible, and unfair besting, by the police) that I had no respect for the police because I had never been in a situation where I had seen heroism, or been helped. The police have never stopped a robber from burgling my house, or stopped a violent crime from happening to me or anyone I know.

The point is, that anecdotally, the police have never appeared to be a positive force around me, except intangibly. They only seem to focus on things I myself, and many of my peers, consider acceptable victimless crimes. They focus on padding revenue by stopping speeding violations, and petty drug offenses.

Largely, police appear to regularly abuse their authority, ignore relevant data, and serve an agenda I am diametrically opposed to. Obviously, this isn't a scientific study, but I think it encapsulates the hatred for police.

Also, there are many instances on youtube and the news, of them either covering for fellow officers, or ignoring basic laws, like speeding, cell-phone use ore petty drugs. They need to wear cameras for objective scrutiny rather than be allowed to BE the law.

EDIT: I should say that of course, there are police officers who work hard, are incorruptible and are genuine upstanding citizens who enforce laws and are just. The simple fact is that a percentage of bad actors can disrupt the flow enough to severely damage an institution if given significant power. See the banking industry for an analogy of this. I do not mean to discount all police, and many do positive things in society.


    I should say that of course, there are police officers 
    who work hard, are incorruptible and are genuine 
    upstanding citizens who enforce laws and are just. 
And those police officers that are incorruptible and genuine upstanding citizens don't last long or succeed in the police officer career because the system not only isn't set up to reward those officers, it is actively antagonistic against such officers [0].

TBH, the only thing that could possible change things is to apply competition in police work. I'd love to see municipalities maintain two police forces and fund them according to how effective they are. Make them compete and they will improve or go out of business.

[0] http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-police-ar...


By comparison, have you ever had a really positive experience with the dentist? Like cops, they're there to solve painful problems that cause very unhappy memories. Anything that compels you to visit the dentist (or the police to visit you) is not going to be associated with positive forces.

It's a tough job to recruit for, since so many people hate you:

1) Minorities hate you, since an overwhelming proportion of criminals emerge from our ranks and successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors.

2) Liberals hate you because rappers do, and also everyone knows cops love to frame black people for crimes nobody committed, and if they were committed it was probably by a cis-male white patriarchy.

3) Conservatives hate you, because you're a public employee and an agent of the gubmint that wants to seize everyone's guns and force gay sex on God-fearing Americans.

Unsurprisingly, it's tough to recruit for the job. Plus, a huge number of cops need to go undercover and are thereby recruiting from cultures that don't share wealthier standards of etiquette. And even cops that don't come from rough backgrounds are forced to constantly interact with awful people who understand nothing but violence and rage. Mother Teresa would adopt thuggish behavior after five minutes on the force.

This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities. Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops? When you aren't faced with hatred and violence all day, it's easier to be chill at traffic stops.


By comparison, have you ever had a really positive experience with the dentist?

Not the OP, but yes. All the time, in fact. Then there's also the crucial difference that going to a dentist is a voluntary exchange, whereas being stopped and frisked by police is an unsolicited act of aggression no matter how you put it.

...successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors

Hardly. Locking up families and neighbors is the exact opposite of crime prevention. It's treating the aftermath. Crime prevention should be analogous to preventative medicine: minimizing the possibility of it occurring to begin with.

Police by definition are reactionary agents. They don't have the competence or the will to do anything other than handle aftermaths and create intimidation in a dubiously effective attempt to scare off bad guys.

This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities.

Pareto principle: 20% of people do 80% of the work, or in this case make most of the difference. It's also the reason why "Not all -ists are like that" arguments don't work: they fail to realize that minorities in an in-group can still be highly influential and destructive.

Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops?

They aren't typically covered in international media. You don't see any bad Serbian cops too often, either. Do they not exist?


"Hardly. Locking up families and neighbors is the exact opposite of crime prevention. It's treating the aftermath. Crime prevention should be analogous to preventative medicine: minimizing the possibility of it occurring to begin with. Police by definition are reactionary agents. They don't have the competence or the will to do anything other than handle aftermaths and create intimidation in a dubiously effective attempt to scare off bad guys."

So... in your opinion, there's no value in removing criminals from the streets because locking them up "is the exact opposite of crime prevention." There is no such thing as a repeat criminal, and the fact that a small number of criminals commit a disproportionate number of crimes is false.

In fact, black and Latino neighborhoods are enriched by the activities of violent felons. Their presence inspires children to study and ensures the safety of women young and old.

I would be very interested to visit your city and see this wonderland.


> blind hatred for the police

Reactions to a detailed first person account are "blind"? What, pray tell, is your standard of acceptable sources for a debate?

> I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice.

1. The victim of theft did not "enforce vigilante justice" even when the police refused to help him.

2. The victim of theft did not propose enforcing vigilante justice at any point in the process. All of his suggestions involved letting the police do their job while he assisted from a distance.

What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like you're accusing this guy of doing something he didn't do in order to avoid acknowledging that there is a problem.

> This could EASILY have led to a shootout.

Half of a policeman's duties could lead to shootouts. Should police everywhere avoid confronting criminals because such confrontations could lead to a shootout? No -- that would be ridiculous. Deciding that you aren't going to enforce petty theft laws because the cost/benefit is off is effectively equivalent to making petty theft legal. Even if this petty theft isn't important, you surely must acknowledge the importance of discouraging petty theft in general and the unsuitability of the "eh, not worth it" attitude for achieving that goal. The need for enforcement follows.

> I'd rather give [the police] the benefit of the doubt

It's very easy to pretend there isn't a problem when it doesn't affect you.


Sorry, but you're either deliberately or negligently misinterpreting my post.

The cops ordered the author to stop pursuing the thieves, for fear of a shootout. They were not themselves afraid of shooting the thieves. The author seems to be quite correct in all his actions, and his anger is appropriate. The cops should have pursued his case, and their failure to do so is wrong.

However, scan this thread for idiotic kneejerk reactions to the very existence of police. It may be fashionable to despise cops, but it's pretty damn stupid to hate the very thin blue line between you and truly awful people.

Villainizing the profession is seems to be an emotional outlet for white guilt and class resentment. All most cops want from their jobs is a peaceful world where criminals don't run riot through decent people.

Seattle PD failed to do their jobs in this case, and should step up enforcement of possible car break-ins -- but then the next HN story will be that cops are racist because they arrested felons for having car theft tools. Cops can't win.


Villainizing the profession is seems to be an emotional outlet for white guilt and class resentment.

How in the hell? A lot of arguments against police come from libertarian perspectives: ones that reject such ideas grounded in identity politics to begin with. Right-wing perspectives, in other words.

All most cops want from their jobs is a peaceful world where criminals don't run riot through decent people.

You certainly do live in a very charitable world.


> Seattle PD failed to do their jobs in this case, and should step up enforcement of possible car break-ins -- but then the next HN story will be that cops are racist because they arrested felons for having car theft tools.

There's a nice wide middle ground between these two alternatives, where the cops arrest people when there is probable cause that they committed a specific crime.


Perhaps you are mistaking a difference in political creed for hatred. I have no hatred, blind or otherwise, for police. My brother will graduate the NY Police Academy in two weeks. However, I envision and work toward a world where police in their current form don't exist at all.

On HN, you probably have a large proportion of people who believe that, like many government services, police will be successfully and peacefully deprecated by voluntary systems yet to be invented.


It's true, though. They are not legally obliged to help you: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-278.ZS.html


Legalese is not my forte. Am I reading this correctly?

A woman called the police and told them that her husband, against a restraining order, came and took her children. Police did nothing. The husband then murdered the children, and a woman filed a suit against the police, saying they should've responded to her call.

The Police argued that it was essentially not their job to go after the husband, until an appropriate arrest warrant was issued, and therefore they were not at fault?

Fabulous...


Wouldn't reducing petty crime lead to a reduction in overall crime? This is a serious question because I really don't know the answer. It could go both ways:

(a) You catch small crooks, and they lead you to bigger fish. (b) You catch small crooks, and they can't do the job, so bigger fish recruits new small fish and the cycle begins again. (c) You catch small crooks, the big fish gets angry and starts to cause real serious damage, leading to move and move violent crimes.

There must be some statistic from the past history that would shine a light on this. Thoughts?


I think that it would. While Giuliani's "broken windows" theory was probably overshadowed by the fading of crack and the clarification of gang territory, it seems pretty conclusive that enforcing minor crimes leads to keeping felons off the streets. Enforcing subway turnstiles led to the capture of a TON of gun-carrying felons that would have otherwise gone on to rob, rape, and murder New Yorkers.

Unfortunately, liberals have somehow seized upon such measures as fascist. My parent comment has received at least five downvotes, for nothing more than saying cops are people too. Stop-and-frisk measures in New York, which were enormously valuable in stopping felons from their next murders, have become persona non grata since black people are disproportionately like to be found breaking parole, carrying weapons, or transporting drugs.

I consider myself liberal, but I'm really disappointed by our kneejerk responses to crime prevention. I think a lot of it stems from white guilt, a self-loathing for which police now serve as whipping boys.


It saddens me to see stop and frisk put in the same category of the rest of this stuff. Sure, let's just blatantly violate the constitution for some perceived measure of public safety....

You want to enforce smaller laws? Great. You want the police to randomly stop and search citizens? Get the fuck out of my country.


> I really hate to see blind hatred for the police

> I have no explanation or excuse why the cops refused to investigate the caller's lead -- and maybe there is no reasonable explanation -- but I'd rather give them the benefit of the doubt

Why do you espouse blind trust and question 'blind' hatred? How can you be blind to what you've seen with your own eyes?

I understand the danger to personal quests for justice. I understand political pressure. But 'pressure' doesn't stop the officers from responding. They could respond to the call, but they choose not to. For political reasons, understandably, but the facts remain.


Sad that you're being down voted. Apparently The majority of HNers only care about drug legalization and stories demonizing underpaid civil servants doing a thankless and dangerous job.


Where are people demonizing the police here?

Starting salary for Seattle Police Officer is $65K with full benefits and many earn over $100k with overtime. Unless you really mess up you will not be fired.

Criticizing the services you pay for doesn't mean you are saying all the people who do it are bad.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: