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

Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

newsnationnow.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 143 posts

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#91

Post by jeffbee »

bluedino wrote: post #88
jeffbee wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surely you are not arguing that crime increased in frequency in Chicago (or any other American city) after 1990, because the statistics all indicate the opposite. Violent crime had fallen by half from 1990 rates by 2000, and now stands at less than 1/3rd the 1990 rate. Some fairly famous research indicates that homicide in Chicago is still highly concentrated, in real geographic distance and in social graph distance.…

"Violent crime" might be 1/3rd the 1990 rate but the number of murders are only about 100 lower than back then. The amount has really climbed up in the last decade.

This seems to give the murder rate even less connection to zoning decisions made in the 1980s.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#92

Post by enragedcacti »

O__________O wrote: post #60
enragedcacti wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You didn’t address that Boule reported a crime on his property and law enforcement respond, which is probably cause; that is no warrant was required and once law enforcement has it, they have the right to enter the property regardless if the property owner requests they don’t, which in this case was oddly also Boule.

take it up with the supreme court then I guess, you could let them know that they got their reasoning all wrong.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#93

Post by repiret »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #87
sumy23 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It really depends on the specific situation. Public space is for everyone’s enjoyment. Unfortunately, some people take advantage of their right to the space in a way that detracts from everyone. Take a park for example. Typically, a great place to take your kids. However, if someone strung out on heroin loiters in the park, it suddenly becomes a much worse place for everyone else. Technically, being high on heroin in…

> Technically, being high on heroin in a public place isn’t a crime. That's hard to believe. If it's apparent to anyone else, it will be a crime in a few different ways. For example: > A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he or she: > (1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavio…

Do you really think people stung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"?

That said, chances are most jurisdictions have some variation of "dunk in public" that isn't as particular about the intoxicant. Even so, the criminal justice system hasn't proven itself to be an especially good solution to substance abusers.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#94

Post by thaumasiotes »

repiret wrote: post #93
thaumasiotes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically, being high on heroin in a public place isn’t a crime. That's hard to believe. If it's apparent to anyone else, it will be a crime in a few different ways. For example: > A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he or she: > (1) Engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavio…

Do you really think people stung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"? That said, chances are most jurisdictions have some variation of "dunk in public" that isn't as particular about the intoxicant. Even so, the criminal justice system hasn't proven itself to be an especially good solution to substance abusers.

> Do you really think people st[r]ung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"?

No, but as you'll note that is not an element of the crime. It suffices to act in a way that "recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm".

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#95

Post by cloudsec9 »

This is just a rehash of an article (Linked inside the article several times!!) from 2020.[1] They claim MASSIVE reductions in crime during the run of this program, over the years 2019 - 2020. Hmmm, what else happened in 2020? Covid and lockdowns, but I'm sure that had zero effect on crime. (In fact the article mentions they had to put the program on hold in 2020 due to the pandemic). It doesn't appear that there is any new reporting in the posted piece, just a re-write of a 2 year old article. And there is no independent verification of claims, just police spokespeople and the Chamber of Commerce. For a data-driven project, that seems ... lacking scientifically.

[1] https://www.kshb.com/news/local/kcpd-crime-fighting-strategy...

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#96

Post by voiper1 »

citizenpaul wrote: post #63

Isnt this just broken window theory from the 80's ?

It sounds like it has a large overlap, but not exactly the same.

E.g. a liquor store isn't "run down and gives the atmosphere that crime is OK" but it's possible that more crime will happen there.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#97

Post by jahewson »

hbarka wrote: post #90

I don’t know what the statistics are for stolen license plates but it seems to me, here in the San Francisco Bay Area anyway, that whenever there’s a recorded incident of a robbery or assault where the perpetrators used a getaway car, in all likelihood they put stolen plates on the car. One way to fight crime in San Francisco and Oakland is to analyze cars crossing the toll plaza and use image recognition methods to…

It’s cute you think they haven’t been doing that for years. I live in the Bay Area and my city track every single vehicle that enters or exists the city limits.

But why steal plates when you can steal the entire car?

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#98

Post by kqr »

calvinmorrison wrote: post #84
anigbrowl wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also tough shit if you were used to catching the bus there and now have to find and probably walk farther to another stop. There used to be 'beat cops' whose job was to just walk around neighborhoods and be familiar with them; not the most efficient approach to policing, but also not the most intimidating or heavy-handed. Now you only see police outside a cruiser if they're doing crowd control, managing a crime scene…

Because humanizing your chattel is a poor idea. It leads to corruption, favoritism, and being soft on the law. Community policing is a great idea, except for enforcers who realized that having people from the same neighborhood enforcing violence on the population tended to leave those enforcers a little soft.

I'm not entirely sure how high your sarcasm knob was turned up for this, but I'm choosing to interpret it as stuck on high.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#99

Post by sumy23 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #94
repiret wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really think people stung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"? That said, chances are most jurisdictions have some variation of "dunk in public" that isn't as particular about the intoxicant. Even so, the criminal justice system hasn't proven itself to be an especially good solution to substance abusers.

> Do you really think people st[r]ung out on heroin do so "with purpose to cause public inconvenience"? No, but as you'll note that is not an element of the crime. It suffices to act in a way that "recklessly creates a risk of public inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm".

I wouldn’t say heroin addicts act with purpose to cause inconvenience. They do cause inconvenience, but that’s not the purpose of their actions.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#100

Post by uoaei »

sandworm101 wrote: post #70
pgt wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By...removing the park?

If you remove a vehicle lane then traffic is reduced. Pull up the sidewalks and loitering pedestrians disappear. Remove the parks and there will be fewer people sleeping in parks. Under-inclusive metrics generally lead to poor decisions.

Vehicles are the only things that use traffic lanes.

Pedestrians are the only things that use sidewalks.

Heroin addicts are not the only things that use parks, unless your neighborhood is very disjointed and sad.

Post reply on HN