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

Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

mercurynews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 262 posts

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#111

Post by ummonk »

ryanmonroe wrote: post #67
ummonk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of that is due to the conviction of the officer who shot Oscar Grant.

If someone decides not to be a police officer because they aren't allowed to shoot unarmed civilians in the back while they're being held face down on the ground, BART is safer without them.

I'm talking about when someone decides not to confront potential criminals because they might get sent to prison for killing someone when they accidently usetheir pistol instead of a taser.

Look, I'm no fan of the police, and often find myself in disbelief when police officers are acquitted (or not indicted) for what can only be described as murder. But the Oscar Grant shooting was clearly a mistake, and whether or not the officer should have been convicted, that kind of conviction will definitely put a damper on officers' willingness to confront people.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#112

Post by thatswrong0 »

esotericn wrote: post #75
twblalock wrote: post #38

This is why it's hard to get support for public transit funding. People don't want to take public transit if they will fear for their lives, or be surrounded by drug addicts and mentally disturbed people yelling at and spitting on other passengers. BART trains and stations are like this on a regular basis; Muni has the same problems but not as bad. I've seen this kind of thing happen on Caltrain late at night also, b…

Is this just an American thing? Healthcare funding, or something? I've never been to SF, but I've visited NYC, and the subway there feels like stepping in to a horror movie. During a two week visit I saw people passing out and being ignored (I was the only one attempting to help), individuals swinging around bricks in socks, and various other obvious examples of severely mentally ill individuals. In London I've never…

The funny thing is that, to me, the NYC system seems to work so much better than San Francisco’s, based on my usage of it. And NYC also has a much bigger police presence than San Francisco, which results in it feeling like a much safer city.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#113

Post by twblalock »

ryanmonroe wrote: post #67
ummonk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder how much of that is due to the conviction of the officer who shot Oscar Grant.

If someone decides not to be a police officer because they aren't allowed to shoot unarmed civilians in the back while they're being held face down on the ground, BART is safer without them.

The BART police are afraid of being falsely accused even when they are in the right, because of the legacy of the Oscar Grant case, so they are overly timid about confronting criminals.

The police were wrong in the Oscar Grant case, but the consequences for public safety have been very negative as a result of the public reaction.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#114

Post by thatswrong0 »

anigbrowl wrote: post #109
thatswrong0 wrote: post #6

Yeah, BART police is a joke. I don’t remember ever seeing a BART police officer riding a train with me. I rarely see them in stations. Getting in and out without paying almost seems easier than paying. SF and Oakland officers never stroll through stations, which is so obviously wrong from a public safety standpoint, yet it seems to be policy. Then again I rarely see SF police officers walking the streets as it is. Ye…

Weird, because I see them on a regular basis and I've lived here a long time. How often do you actually ride BART?

I used to ride it every day for my commute (which was for.. 3 years?). Now it’s only a couple times a week.

Maybe it’s just the stations I frequent. Still, compared to a place like NYC, it’s a joke. No wonder delinquents raid entire train cars.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#115

Post by pteredactyl »

Same is true for San Francisco.

Criminals have more rights than children.

Or taxpayers...

If we are to have a functional civilization we must remain open but also learn how to say no to unacceptable behavior.

Especially the egregious. Like you see everyday. People littering, shooting up and shitting on the sidewalk.

Meanwhile our legislators are passing laws to limit the amount of restaurants in certain neighborhoods. Or trying to ban companies from having their own cafeterias.

It's the ideology of 'sounding good'.

Empiricism needs to take its place.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#116

Post by pteredactyl »

anigbrowl wrote: post #95
twblalock wrote: post #38

This is why it's hard to get support for public transit funding. People don't want to take public transit if they will fear for their lives, or be surrounded by drug addicts and mentally disturbed people yelling at and spitting on other passengers. BART trains and stations are like this on a regular basis; Muni has the same problems but not as bad. I've seen this kind of thing happen on Caltrain late at night also, b…

True, but a plaintiff's lawyer has an incentive to overstate the problem on the client's behalf. It's irresponsible journalism to just quot this and attribute it to 'lawyer' (a stereo typically responsible person) without mentioning the adversarial context in which the remark is made. 'Plaintiff alleges BART 'a free-for-all' for Criminals' would have been better. The attorney's duty is to maximize the perceived level…

It's true though. Do you ride BART or live in SF or Oakland?

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#117

Post by et-al »

nradov wrote: post #79

The HN demographic skews male, and I suspect a lot of the men who are big fans of public transport here fail to appreciate how unsafe many women feel on those systems.

Yeah, there was a recent Twitter survey on this issue by an SF Examiner reporter:

https://twitter.com/FitzTheReporter/status/10620929010002042...

Wired also mentioned that women in NYC pay on average $26-50/month extra for safer means of transit:

https://www.wired.com/story/nyc-public-transportation-pink-t...

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#118

Post by twblalock »

trevyn wrote: post #52
krackers wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's a good idea. Seeing you have some cash on hand is a signal that you are more well-of and they might be more incentivized than they were previously to take your bag/wallet/etc. Basically there's no incentive for them to stop at just taking that extra cash when they can take that and whatever else they were planning to.

The trick is to dramatically throw all the cash into the air and run. :)

While you are in an enclosed train car? Good luck getting away.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#119

Post by ryanmonroe »

ummonk wrote: post #111
ryanmonroe wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone decides not to be a police officer because they aren't allowed to shoot unarmed civilians in the back while they're being held face down on the ground, BART is safer without them.

I'm talking about when someone decides not to confront potential criminals because they might get sent to prison for killing someone when they accidently usetheir pistol instead of a taser. Look, I'm no fan of the police, and often find myself in disbelief when police officers are acquitted (or not indicted) for what can only be described as murder. But the Oscar Grant shooting was clearly a mistake, and whether or n…

> I'm talking about when someone decides not to confront potential criminals because they might get sent to prison for killing someone when they accidently usetheir pistol instead of a taser.

I mean, same idea. If a police officer is not confident they can dependably discern the difference between a gun and a taser, BART is definitely safer without them.

Re: Lawyer: ‘It’s a Free for All’ for Criminals on BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit)

#120

Post by rkho »

sdinsn wrote: post #69
jeffdavis wrote: post #16

Maybe they should issue more concealed carry permits in bay area counties. It's wrong for the police to simultaneously neglect your protection and also prevent you from protecting yourself.

Or perhaps we should make different changes to society that allow citizens in public to be safe without having to carry a gun?

I'm all for this. What changes do you propose, how do you intend on carrying out those changes so that the execution matches the intent, and how can I help?
Post reply on HN