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

111–120 of 143 posts

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#111

Post by c22 »

enragedcacti wrote: post #46
O__________O wrote: post #38

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…

It actually seems to say that they have recourse through an established process with congress and that the courts decline to override this process. Apparently Boule availed himself of this process but was dissatisfied with the results (I guess because though it prompted an internal investigation of the agent it didn't result in any damages being awarded to him?)

Basically it sounds like if you don't agree that border patrol agents should be allowed to conduct warrantless searches near the border for the sake of national security then you should contact your congressperson and voice your condemnation of the policy.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#112

Post by zo1 »

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.

One thing we may not be seeing or considering in those facts: How much of that reduction umis due to people altering their own behavior. E.g. Not walking as much, or avoiding bad parts of town, moving to suburbs, expecting police to be tough on crime.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#113

Post by Brigand »

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.

There is an OR in the statement, ie purpose is only one part of the condition.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#114

Post by diordiderot »

kqr wrote: post #105
projektfu wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I like the idea of letting the city put delapidated buildings up for auction and mailing the owner a check.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#115

Post by cloudsec9 »

voiper1 wrote: post #96
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.

It's also possible that poverty causes people to "self medicate" with cheap alcohol, and that crime is endemic to areas where there is poverty.

To me, this sounds like "broken windows" with more "data", but less attention to possible bias. And the fact that these "articles" present only points from the proponents and the police, and no real data or independent review, gives more credence to that theory, in my opinion.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#116

Post by ocdtrekkie »

wizofaus wrote: post #79
tomxor wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some criminals, yes. But plenty just get mixed up with the wrong crowd or go through some rough patch that leads them into a period of criminal activity that has persisted even when better choices become available. And I'd always advocate for solutions that involved giving people better options in tandem with making life harder for criminals.

So like, if someone deals drugs and uses a bus stop as an exchange point, and the transportation authority moves the bus stop... is that going to cause people to give up their life of crime, or cause them to swap their meeting point?

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#117

Post by wizofaus »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #116
wizofaus wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some criminals, yes. But plenty just get mixed up with the wrong crowd or go through some rough patch that leads them into a period of criminal activity that has persisted even when better choices become available. And I'd always advocate for solutions that involved giving people better options in tandem with making life harder for criminals.

So like, if someone deals drugs and uses a bus stop as an exchange point, and the transportation authority moves the bus stop... is that going to cause people to give up their life of crime, or cause them to swap their meeting point?

Any individual change like that might not have a significant impact, but as part of a range of reforms etc. it's not so hard to believe moving (or better monitoring of) bus stops and other similar public amenities could increase community safety (which may just mean criminals resort to interacting less with the public and more with other criminals, but that's still an improvement). And as part of that at least some criminals may see it as an opportunity to change directions in their lives. Do you have a better idea?

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#118

Post by pshirshov »

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…

> 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 $PROPERTY loiters in the park, it suddenly becomes a much worse place for everyone else. Technically, being $PROPERTY in a public place isn’t a crime. This person is well within their rights to use the public space. But in many cases, people like this form a small minority that ruins the public space for everyone. Discouraging this type of person is actually maximizing the utility of public space.

PROPERTY={high on heroin | fat | ugly | gay | disabled | autistic | ... }

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#119

Post by lotsofpulp »

asveikau wrote: post #104
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…

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.

The needles they leave lying around are noticed and harmful.

Re: Fighting crime by checking buildings, not suspects

#120

Post by [deleted] »

uoaei wrote: post #100
sandworm101 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN