Police allow car break-ins to become a Seattle growth industry

By comparison, have you ever had a really positive experience with the dentist? Like cops, they're there to solve painful problems that cause very unhappy memories. Anything that compels you to visit the dentist (or the police to visit you) is not going to be associated with positive forces.

It's a tough job to recruit for, since so many people hate you:

1) Minorities hate you, since an overwhelming proportion of criminals emerge from our ranks and successful crime prevention means locking up our families and neighbors.

2) Liberals hate you because rappers do, and also everyone knows cops love to frame black people for crimes nobody committed, and if they were committed it was probably by a cis-male white patriarchy.

3) Conservatives hate you, because you're a public employee and an agent of the gubmint that wants to seize everyone's guns and force gay sex on God-fearing Americans.

Unsurprisingly, it's tough to recruit for the job. Plus, a huge number of cops need to go undercover and are thereby recruiting from cultures that don't share wealthier standards of etiquette. And even cops that don't come from rough backgrounds are forced to constantly interact with awful people who understand nothing but violence and rage. Mother Teresa would adopt thuggish behavior after five minutes on the force.

This isn't to say there aren't bad cops, but they're a tiny minority of all cops and largely reflect their communities. Isn't it weird how there are no bad Canadian or Swedish cops? When you aren't faced with hatred and violence all day, it's easier to be chill at traffic stops.

This is a silly op ed piece designed to generate outrage based on a single, biased, anecdotal incident. The Seattle media, from kiro to the stranger, has devolved to this on just about every issue. Whether the issue is crime, urban planning, or bike lanes its much easier to generate their pennies from outrage than actually reporting on a substantive issues. By reading these "stories" we do nothing but reinforce the negative feedback loop.

If single sourced anecdotal evidence is all we need I'll share mine: In the past two years my house has been broken in to once & prowled twice (that I know of). My car has been broken in to twice. My neighbors cars have been broken in to three times, at least. In every incident Seattle PD have been on scene within 7 to 15 minutes. Reports after the fact usually get a single car/officer. In progress has been multiple cars boxing in a sweeping the neighborhood. As I recall canine has come out twice to try and track perpetrators on foot. For the home burglary the responding officer spent about an hour walking the scene, taking photos, and trying to recover prints. Dispatch and responding officers have never been anything less than responsive, courteous, and professional. But that's not enticing link bait, is it?

Edit: The plethora of downvotes without comment are fun. Do you object to my characterization of seattle media as "link bait" or posting my own anecdotal incidents?

For context this is my neighborhood: http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/24/shooting-suspect-in... http://spdblotter.seattle.gov/2014/10/18/police-arrest-man-f...

Washington is a conceal carry friendly state, I wonder how reporting an attempt at a citizens arrest would have changed the situation.

Here in Santa Cruz we have a very high property/lifestyle crime problem, thankfully the PD haven't given up, but the courts have made things here basically catch and release.

The story basically comes down to laziness on the part of the police. Seattle doesn't have the budget problems of Oakland where this same situation has basically been going on for a decade.

> blind hatred for the police

Reactions to a detailed first person account are "blind"? What, pray tell, is your standard of acceptable sources for a debate?

> I understand why cops are leery of having citizens pursue and enforce vigilante justice.

1. The victim of theft did not "enforce vigilante justice" even when the police refused to help him.

2. The victim of theft did not propose enforcing vigilante justice at any point in the process. All of his suggestions involved letting the police do their job while he assisted from a distance.

What are you trying to say? Because it sounds like you're accusing this guy of doing something he didn't do in order to avoid acknowledging that there is a problem.

> This could EASILY have led to a shootout.

Half of a policeman's duties could lead to shootouts. Should police everywhere avoid confronting criminals because such confrontations could lead to a shootout? No -- that would be ridiculous. Deciding that you aren't going to enforce petty theft laws because the cost/benefit is off is effectively equivalent to making petty theft legal. Even if this petty theft isn't important, you surely must acknowledge the importance of discouraging petty theft in general and the unsuitability of the "eh, not worth it" attitude for achieving that goal. The need for enforcement follows.

> I'd rather give [the police] the benefit of the doubt

It's very easy to pretend there isn't a problem when it doesn't affect you.

> the new powers granted to police under laws such as the Patriot Act. Yes, they have more power than ever before to spy on you. No, they won't arrest criminals, even after you have tracked down the criminals yourself. The government needs expanded powers so it can spy on you, not the criminal

Surely it's possible to use the same database collecting info on Patriot Act violations to sift through and report on petty crimes also, even predict where and to/by whom they might happen? If the police won't do it then surely there's someone out there who could hack into the machines running the algorithms for such terrorism and high profile crime prediction to do the same for car breakins?