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

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#101

Post by thaumasiotes »

sumy23 wrote: post #99
thaumasiotes wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How is that a response to my comment? Why would it matter whether they have the purpose of causing inconvenience? It's not an element of the crime.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#102

Post by uoaei »

sumy23 wrote: post #65
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> 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…

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…

I would really prefer to humanize those people and develop systems in place so they can find the help they need, rather than having sleeping in what is probably the safest possible place they have access to, from a personal safety standpoint.

If it makes you feel better about your own society that society would rather hide its flaws from public view than actually solve them, find solace in the fact that the blight and detritus you identify would also be solved if those people were given the treatment they deserve.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#103

Post by uoaei »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #101
sumy23 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is that a response to my comment? Why would it matter whether they have the purpose of causing inconvenience? It's not an element of the crime.

Because that's the language of the very statutes cited above.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#104

Post by asveikau »

sumy23 wrote: post #65
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> 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…

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…

I think a guy on heroin in a park could easily not be noticed. This exact scenario happens harmlessly in major cities. You're overestimating the danger of happening to be in the same park as that person.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#105

Post by kqr »

projektfu wrote: post #29
O__________O wrote: post #16

Topic reminds me of the book, A Burglar's Guide to the City: https://www.amazon.com/Burglars-Guide-City-Geoff-Manaugh/dp/... Which started out as a blog: https://bldgblog.com/ Unlike the book, this city appears to think the solution to all their problems is to remove the architectures causing issues, instead of trying to make city planning and management choices that enable positive behavior; successful areas don’t h…

They usually don't have them because someone cares enough to keep the fire lit, usually people with a lot of free time. I have lived in successful areas that had an abandoned building with boarded up windows. Soon a local started pushing the city to get involved until it was finally condemned, as the owner didn't want to sell it to someone who would use it. I can see how poor areas, especially with lots of renters an…

> Soon a local started pushing the city to get involved until it was finally condemned, as the owner didn't want to sell it to someone who would use it.

I find it a bit sad that we have a political system that so strongly protects proprietors that they can choose to let a building fall into condemnation instead of just... let people use it.

Why shouldn't people be allowed to just... move into and maintain a building, if it's otherwise not used?

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#106

Post by c22 »

uoaei wrote: post #103
thaumasiotes wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a response to my comment? Why would it matter whether they have the purpose of causing inconvenience? It's not an element of the crime.

Because that's the language of the very statutes cited above.

I guess this is why people hire lawyers...

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#107

Post by thaumasiotes »

uoaei wrote: post #103
thaumasiotes wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that a response to my comment? Why would it matter whether they have the purpose of causing inconvenience? It's not an element of the crime.

Because that's the language of the very statutes cited above.

Well, sure, if you can't read more than 14 words in one sitting. But for everyone capable of reading entire sentences at once.. no, that's not the language of the statute, you would have to be intentionally misreading it to make that statement.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#108

Post by 2fast4you »

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.

Huh, maybe the violence is the problem. Maybe officers SHOULD be a little soft

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#109

Post by incompatible »

anigbrowl wrote: post #34
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> 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…

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…

People loitering at a bus stop ... reminds me of something I read once, maybe it was:

https://www.abhmuseum.org/black-teens-arrested-while-waiting...

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#110

Post by vanviegen »

rayiner wrote: post #74
SkeuomorphicBee wrote: post #31

> 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…

I’m not squeamish about urban areas—I lived in downtown Baltimore, Wilmington Delaware, and Atlanta. But you’re missing some perspective. The captain is talking about gangs. The presence of gang members means that law abiding citizens are driven out of these public places. So the folks who are “loitering” typically aren’t up to anything good. I just met an Uber driver from Germany the other day. He lives in Georgia (…

> I remember thinking it odd because I had never heard a European talk like that.

What did you find odd about that? That a European doesn't want to live in a dangerous city?

Post reply on HN