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

Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 94 posts

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#61

Post by Semiapies »

chrischen wrote: post #34
grandalf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Normal people always imagine that there is no way they would ever be considered criminal enough to themselves warrant such treatment... It sounds like this is your view.

What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow. Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.

If it's not some sort of "treatment", then just what on Earth are they doing that's causing any effect?

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#62

Post by tedunangst »

grandalf wrote: post #47
tedunangst wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the police considered me criminal (by mistake, vindictive, whatever) enough to park the naughty van in front of my house for a little while, and then drove it off, I think I'd recover. The van is not a permanent fixture. It's not a scarlet letter burned into your front yard. It goes away.

you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality.. Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!

You have a funny definition of pre-emptive. When the police send the van out in response to a complaint, that's post-emptive.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#63

Post by jsteele »

chrischen wrote: post #38
nonrecursive wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what's wrong with asking the police to help protect your house from vandalism, even if you are on vacation . The kind of behavior this old lady's kids were engaged in was illegal, and the police helped solve the problem in a cost-effective way. Where's the problem?

The problem is that it went from extreme no-other-solution necessity to a more mundane use. In other words we get too comfortable with it and pretty soon they could be monitoring everyone. It's not a slippery slope. It's just natural progression.

You made a typo: Please change "monitoring" to "tasering".

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#64

Post by chrischen »

Semiapies wrote: post #61
chrischen wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What treatment? It's a scarecrow, not a killer scarecrow. Yes it's my view in that I am not a drug dealer, it is preferable for me to have this in front of my house (granted there is a drug dealing/violent illegal activity in my neighborhood) to warrant it.

If it's not some sort of "treatment", then just what on Earth are they doing that's causing any effect?

It's selective. What I meant was what kind of negative treatment to me? It's like the mosquito. That high frequency sound is annoying to teenagers. A police van is annoying to drug dealers? You think people like you smashed that cop car up? No, people that were annoyed by cop presence did that.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#65

Post by Semiapies »

chrischen wrote: post #64
Semiapies wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not some sort of "treatment", then just what on Earth are they doing that's causing any effect?

It's selective. What I meant was what kind of negative treatment to me? It's like the mosquito. That high frequency sound is annoying to teenagers. A police van is annoying to drug dealers? You think people like you smashed that cop car up? No, people that were annoyed by cop presence did that.

Nice dodging of the question! I'll ask again: if it's not some sort of "treatment", then why are the cops bragging about the effect it has?

"You think people like you smashed that cop car up?"

Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?

Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? After all, they weren't "people like you".

Of course it's nothing to you - you'll never have one of those parked in front of your house. One of those won't ever go in your neighborhood, because people would lawyer up. It's all very selective, as you put it.

No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#66

Post by Semiapies »

jsteele wrote: post #39
patio11 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who are "civil libertarians"? People who value their civil liberties? People who value civil liberties are civil libertarians in the same sense that people who value women are feminists. Whatever they are, you say you're not one. Correct. I am also not a feminist.

You didn't answer the question.

There's no intention of answering it, just demonizing "civil libertarians" - i.e., anyone who disagrees with him and thinks this violates civil liberties - in order to pretend to have the high ground.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#67

Post by Semiapies »

kragen wrote: post #31
moscoso wrote: post #6

Seems another version of the "caveirão" we have here in Rio.

I think there's a big difference between killing people indiscriminately and putting a camera in front of their house.

edited

Retracted - I'm just too disgusted reading this thread, today.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#68

Post by chrischen »

Semiapies wrote: post #65
chrischen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's selective. What I meant was what kind of negative treatment to me? It's like the mosquito. That high frequency sound is annoying to teenagers. A police van is annoying to drug dealers? You think people like you smashed that cop car up? No, people that were annoyed by cop presence did that.

Nice dodging of the question! I'll ask again: if it's not some sort of "treatment", then why are the cops bragging about the effect it has? "You think people like you smashed that cop car up?" Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up? Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with? After all, they weren't "people like you". Of co…

> Do you think everyone whose home this has been parked in front of smashed that car up?

How many people's home was this parked in front of? Do you think cops went around parking cars in front of people's homes to intimidate random people?

> Do you think they were all guilty of the "crimes" that they haven't even been charged with?

Did I say that? Did I even imply that? You think I am one of those "sacrifice liberty for a little security people"? Don't assume that's what I'm arguing for. As far as the cases in the article mentioned, yes. It's a controversial topic and I understand a lot of people have strong emotions over it. And the action these cops took might seem like it's leaning towards the wiretapping camp but it's not. I do think they were all guilty. There was a complaint and someone called the cops to help. They did. As for their specific usage as described in the article (mostly) I think it's perfectly fine.

> No, they'll stay in poor/minority neighborhoods, where people will have the choices of taking it or moving.

Is that what happened? No. So I don't even know why you brought that up.

I know what you're talking about though. If cops decided to target minority neighborhoods simply because minorities have a higher chance of criminal activity it would be a point of contention for me too. But that's not what the cops did in the article. They answered a cry for help. They knew there was problem in the area. And yes the last thing the cop did where she parked that car in front of that house was a little iffy, assuming she wasn't sure if a drug dealer actually lived there.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#69

Post by grandalf »

tedunangst wrote: post #62
grandalf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality.. Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!

You have a funny definition of pre-emptive. When the police send the van out in response to a complaint, that's post-emptive.

no it's not, b/c crimes have not actually been committed yet, which is why the van is just sent out and nobody is arrested.

Re: Cops Use Old Brink's Truck to Shame Suspects

#70

Post by grandalf »

chrischen wrote: post #50
grandalf wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you seem to think that pre-emptive "scarlet letters" are a good method of discouraging criminality.. Why not simply erect use data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior (based on age, sex, employment status, national origin, etc.) and send out the vans before the crimes can be committed!

Because "data mining techniques to pinpoint households likely to commit criminal behavior ..." and a van with scary cameras meant to help an innocent person live in peace are different things. You should really stop seeing things as black and white. It's not one or the other. We're not all with the terrorists or with Bush. You're falling prey to a common logical fallacy: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slop…

My point is that harassment is harassment so why are you not willing to make a bold statement advocating it across the board if you think it's harmless?
Post reply on HN