Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 262 posts

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#131

Post by SamReidHughes »

vikingcaffiene wrote: post #127
userbinator wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The more likely it is for criminals to be fatally shot by everyone around them if they try to do anything, the less likely they're going to try --- even if they themselves have a gun, they're going to be outnumbered.

No. Just no. What you’re going to have is a shit load of people with guns firing in close quarters. When the police get there they’ll have no idea who the bad guy is. How about we just make the damn trains more safe instead of advocating for Mad Max Thunderdome?

Among the millions (or hundreds of thousands) of uses of a gun in self defense each year in America, most don't involve shootings.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#132

Post by twblalock »

ryanmonroe wrote: post #124
twblalock wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The BART police are afraid of being falsely accused even when they are in the right, because of the legacy of the Oscar Grant case, so they are overly timid about confronting criminals. The police were wrong in the Oscar Grant case, but the consequences for public safety have been very negative as a result of the public reaction.

This implies it's rational to fear for your freedom as a law-abiding person on the basis that a true criminal was convicted. That makes no sense. By that logic we should be against letting police arrest these robbers anyway, because if they did, all of the non-criminal commuters would refuse to enter BART for fear of being charged with robbery.

No, it does not imply that.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#133

Post by masonic »

ransom1538 wrote: post #13

If you take BART and ride into Oakland -- you are on your own. There is no one that will protect you. My next door neighbor was assaulted. She was brutalized. Sigh. It was bad. THEN she went home, reported it with police. This is where it gets weird. The people that assaulted her -- armed with her ID card went to her APARTMENT -- luckly she was somewhere else with her parents. The people that brutalized her ransacked…

  there is no way to prosecute these guys unless there is camera evidence
... and the original batch of "surveillance cameras" were nonfunctional dummies[0].

[0] https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Use-of-decoy-cameras-se...

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#134

Post by SamReidHughes »

sdinsn wrote: post #69
jeffdavis wrote: post #16

Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent you from protecting yourself.

Or perhaps we should make different changes to society that allow citizens in public to be safe without having to carry a gun?

There is. Let citizens who want to carry a gun, carry a gun. Herd immunity will protect the rest.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#135

Post by glennpratt »

Judgmentality wrote: post #10
tdumitrescu wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AFAIK bart police are actual peace officers: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Rapid_Transit_Polic... I remember i used to see ads of theirs years ago, prominently displaying their 150K starting salary. Anecdotally, i agree that riding bart has felt sketchier the past few years. I generally ride from SF to Lake Merritt or 12th St Oakland.

> prominently displaying their 150K starting salary I thought that seemed high, but they are still paid quite well. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Bart-Police-Officer-Salarie...

~$105k based on 1 response, that doesn't seem like much data. The linked job posting shows:

> Pay Rate

$4,986.87/Month (Base Salary - While in Academy) $5,651.79/Month (Base Salary - Upon Academy Completion)

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#136

Post by nradov »

olivermarks wrote: post #18
Judgmentality wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> prominently displaying their 150K starting salary I thought that seemed high, but they are still paid quite well. https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/Bart-Police-Officer-Salarie...

There are lots of BART security job vacancies, probably because no matter how high the salary it would be a very dangerous job. This is similar to the social situation in NYC when the Guardian Angels were formed, but what is extraordinary is how wealthy the bay area is today compared to 1980's New York area... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_Angels

Law enforcement is not even on the top 10 list for most dangerous jobs. I suspect there must be other reasons for the high vacancy rate.

http://time.com/5074471/most-dangerous-jobs/

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#137

Post by masonic »

jeffdavis wrote: post #16

Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent you from protecting yourself.

It is almost impossible for somebody not politically connected to get a CCW in a blue or purple county.

There WAS one police chief in Contra Costa County that had a shall-issue policy for CCW (after clearing training and background checks). In response to this, the Legislature actually changed the law, disallowing all police chiefs except your city or residence to issue you a CCW.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#138

Post by francisofascii »

twblalock wrote: post #38

This is why it's hard to get support for public transit funding. People don't want to take public transit if they will fear for their lives, or be surrounded by drug addicts and mentally disturbed people yelling at and spitting on other passengers. BART trains and stations are like this on a regular basis; Muni has the same problems but not as bad. I've seen this kind of thing happen on Caltrain late at night also, b…

The American highway system isn’t any safer. Rampant speeding, tailgating, swerving in and out, distracted on phones, etc. All of which is rarely and lightly punished.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#139

Post by masonic »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #80
rdtsc wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> full fledged police officers with drug dogs at train stations, which is straight up fascist. Hmm. Is it the dogs that make them fascists? The uniform? Yeah you shouldn't talk to the police and all that but going straight to fascism seems a bit hyperbolic.

It's the fact that drug dogs at train stations unfairly target poor people and minorities for possession of personal quantities of drugs (traffickers don't take the train), despite rates of drug use being fairly consistent across socio-economic borders. Drug dogs are also generally also inaccurate and respond heavily to their handlers signals, and are therefore susceptible to their handlers biases. They're basically…

  unfairly target poor people and minorities
How do they train the dogs to recognize which people are poor?

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#140

Post by masonic »

mc32 wrote: post #90

If BART wants its ridership to feel safe they need two things: increase officer presence (and prosecute vigorously) and two add cameras all over their properties. No fake pretend cameras. Deter and prosecute violators. Looking the other way when things happen, slaps on the wrists, etc., don’t work. I think BART is shy because at least there is one incident of manslaughter by one of their officers. On the other hand n…

  one incident of manslaughter by one of their officers
If you're referring to Oscar Grant[0], the verdict was involuntary manslaughter, but I thought it was clearly murder (with, perhaps, questionable sanity) -- Grant was fully subdued and not resisting when he was shot.

Ironically, the sentence of IM plus the gun enhancement meant more prison time than Voluntary Manslaughter alone would have.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Oscar_Grant#Closin...

Post reply on HN