One could make a "Papers, Please" style game, but for being a police chief.
You might enjoy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/This_Is_the_Police
Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
41–50 of 143 posts
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
A great example of positive action was the story of the Oakland Buddha. Intended to discourage littering but in the end cleaned up the entire neighberhood. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Buddha https://thisiscriminal.com/episode-15-hes-neutral/
2009-2014 sounds a lot like tech gentrification years for Oakland, no?
As someone who briefly lived in Oakland around that time, both things can be true. It was (and might still be) pretty rough territory while it had us tech people all moved in. The Bhudda effect sure looked real to me.
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#43Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#44Is it just my imagination, or does it seem like there's a weirdly quasi-commercial element around the push for "risk-based policing"? On one hand it's presented as simply being a scientific(-ish) approach that can be used to get better results than traditional methods, but on the other hand it's treated almost like a brand name, with a book titled "Risk-Based Policing" having an official website at riskbasedpolicing.…
It's Six Sigma for cops.
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#45> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…
Isn’t loitering and foot traffic code for drug dealers selling drugs illegally to their customers?
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> what’s next, make warrentless, no knock searches legal For 60% of the US population, this is already the case. Not by police, but border agents have been granted warrantless hone access by the supreme court this month: https://nitter.net/anildash/status/1534639563167105025#m
Maybe next time you see random post on Twitter you should research it before sharing. In the case, ruling had to do with an assault and the right to sue, not warrantless entry; victim was an informant and reported a crime, law enforcement responded, which is completely legal, unless I am missing something; obviously assaulting someone is not.
> In the lawsuit against Egbert, Boule argued Egbert had retaliated against him in violation of his First Amendment rights and that he had entered his private property, refused to leave and pushed him to the ground violating his Fourth Amendment rights.
As far as I understand it the decision does not contest that Boule's 4th amendment rights were violated, but it doesn't extend the right to sue a federal officer from "Bivens" to border patrol agents.
So yes, while the case itself is not warrantless entry, the precedent extends to all fourth amendment rights and says that someone subjected to a warrantless search by border patrol has no recourse.
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#47This is like solving homelessness by putting spikes on benches to keep people from sleeping there: It doesn't solve the problem, it just pushes it out of your jurisdiction.
Maybe, but that's assuming criminals are no more likely to opt instead for going clean if circumstances change in such a way that committing crimes becomes less rewarding than it is for homeless people to "opt" for purchasing/renting a home if circumstances change that make sleeping rough less attractive.
Many criminals can't get a job just like many homeless can't afford rent (the sad thing is that the latter sometimes do have a job).
How does it make sense to dissuade those people from doing something they don't have a choice in. As the parent said, it will only displace, it's as uninformed as shouting "get a job you lazy bum" at people.
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#48> For example, in Kansas City a bus stop at a particular intersection was attracting drug sales and loitering. So the police called the local transportation authority and had the bus stop moved. > “I think within a week, maybe not even that, that immediately cut down on the loitering and foot traffic,” Capt. Jonas Baughman told the local press. As an outsider, I have no words for how absurd this is to me. The fact th…
Isn’t loitering and foot traffic code for drug dealers selling drugs illegally to their customers?
It's generally people hanging out that don't have good intentions in mind, which might include drug transactions.
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#49Is it just my imagination, or does it seem like there's a weirdly quasi-commercial element around the push for "risk-based policing"? On one hand it's presented as simply being a scientific(-ish) approach that can be used to get better results than traditional methods, but on the other hand it's treated almost like a brand name, with a book titled "Risk-Based Policing" having an official website at riskbasedpolicing.…
It's Six Sigma for cops.
I initially assumed that you were just joking, but after a bit more reading it seems like it almost literally is Six Sigma for cops (to the extent that it's actually the job of cops to reduce crime, which is debatable).
Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t loitering and foot traffic code for drug dealers selling drugs illegally to their customers?
It's generally people hanging out that don't have good intentions in mind, which might include drug transactions.
I imagine since in the US, no one walks and there is nothing of interest outside, anyone who is out standing around is probably engaging in some criminal activity.
What a sad society where this is the case.