51–60 of 143 posts
> 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?
That sentence read strangely to me as well; I think foot traffic is great and my favorite places in America are built around promoting it.
Five Points was once the worst neighborhood in the United States. It was razed and replaced with Columbus Park. Now its a safe center of the community in Manhattan's Chinatown. Gangs in Chicago were concentrated into a few high-rises owned by the public housing administration until the 1990s. The buildings were razed in an effort to curtail the rampant crime within them. The unintended consequence was that the once u…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For certain classes of crime, pushing the criminals out also increases the crime rate. I recall reading about a study on this where pushing criminals out of a 'bad neighborhood' caused the crime rate in that area to drop, but the rate in two adjacent neighborhoods went up by 60% of the drop in the 'bad' one.
That would be an argument against any attempt to clean up crime that wasn't done at a greater-city-wide scale. And maybe that really is true - the only genuinely effective measures you can take to reduce crime have to be applied to a sufficiently wide area. I'm not sure if we have enough data points to draw that conclusion though.
Is 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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn’t loitering and foot traffic code for drug dealers selling drugs illegally to their customers?
Outside the context of crime: loitering, yes, foot traffic, not really. It's possible this particular phrase is a euphemism used in crime reporting, I don't know, but if it is I don't know why they wouldn't just say "officers no longer suspected dealers were using this place" / "informants/word on the street was that distribution moved to xyz ... " That sentence read strangely to me as well; I think foot traffic is g…
I say this as someone who lives in a high crime area.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…