Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > The solution to trailhead car thieves?
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 485 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk wrote:
Fair question, but what is wrong with being pissed off about property crime?

Here we could have an interesting philosophical discussion, IMO, without people becoming emotionally distressed.  What is wrong with being angry about events outside of your control?  The Stoics would tell us that such reactions are beyond useless and serve only to increase one's own suffering.  However, I think it's more complicated.  Negative emotions, such as anger, can lead to positive action, such as writing to elected officials.  The metric by which I judge an action is simply whether it's useful.  (To whom?  Well, to me, of course.)  This is often difficult.  In the case of petty crime or vandalism, I would try to contain my anger as quickly as possible, get my window fixed and forget about it.  As someone pointed out though, trailhead crime can be not-so-minor.  Someone can break your windows, slash your tires so you can't pursue them, take your registration certificate, and rob your house.  Then, anger could be useful, as long as it doesn't boil over to the point where the officer you're dealing with loses sympathy for you and just wants you to go away.  So that's my (probably short-sighted) answer to your rhetorical question that wasn't addressed to me.  Subject to change.

Schenk wrote:
To answer: As noted many times, on many other similar topics before, there is no single solution, but turning your head and saying it is no big deal is certainly NOT a move in the right direction.

This may simply be a matter of semantics.  To me, billions of people without access to clean water (for example) is a big deal.  Someone breaking into my car is certainly a bummer, but falls considerably lower on the spectrum of indignation.  Someone murdering me would be a little higher up.

Schenk wrote:
Lumping all punishment into the "incarceration" category is a far to broad sweeping characterization of the available options for punishment.
There is:
1) Restitution/Community Service
2) fines
3) impounding of any vehicles and tools used in the committing of the crimes
4) Banishment from State or Federal land? (might not be an option)
5) And finally, incarceration for failure to meet the Court's order/sentencing in these cases.

I think the problem you're always going to run into, though, is how to pay for all of this.  Police departments have limited budgets and want the biggest measurable bang for their buck.

Schenk wrote:
Another possible part of a solution: If we take away the paths for criminals to convert stolen property into cash or drugs that would help too.
So, therefore I also think a closer watch and regulation (if that is the right term) on Pawn Shops and other mechanisms (eBay, Craigslist, etc.) for criminals to turn ill gotten booty into cash would help immensely.
In this day and age it would not be that super difficult to have a central database listing stolen property, at least at a regional level to begin with, eventually expanding to the  National level. Many stolen items could be identified (serial numbered, or unique items being the easiest to identify) when some criminal tries to sell them and could be arrested/interviewed/whatever is appropriate for the specific situation.

An excellent idea, but I don't think it will work.  Take a look at bike theft.  Extremely common.  It takes a minute to register your serial number with bikeregistry.com, and it's somewhat effective, but how many people actually do that?  If you have, then good for you, but you're in the minority.  Serious bike commuters follow a simple rule: have the worst bike on the rack, and the best lock.  Kind of like the old saying, you don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than your partner...

Schenk wrote:
We incarcerate for many of the wrong reasons and fail to help the certain percentage of criminals who need mental help.

So true.  I hear there are some...first steps...being taken in this department, but it's hard to imagine things changing much in this country any time soon.  We are a culture of lazy optimizers rather than long term planners.

Cameras creep me out but there's a reason everyone in Russia has a dash cam.  Consider this though.  More and more cars will be equipped with self-driving hardware--cameras and lidar--to prepare for the day when/if the software is finally viable.  How long before your car is able to record everything around it 24 hours a day?  (And then how long before those video streams are sent to central facilities with face-recognition capabilities, and later AI systems for, say, recognizing suspicious behavior in video streams?  And then the crooks will start doing all their work with drones, and the arms race will continue...)
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 4665 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
Chief Joseph
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 4:11 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk wrote:
Regarding incarceration rates; why do you think America has a high incarceration rate?
We do need to lock up many criminals, but IMO we have a high incarceration rate because we have the WRONG laws.
We incarcerate for many of the wrong reasons and fail to help the certain percentage of criminals who need mental help.

I wonder how many people are incarcerated for Marijuana possession and/or distribution? I would say (hopefully) that within 10-15 years ALL states will have a form of Marijuana legalization. The best case scenario is if the Federal Government would step in and legalize or decriminalize it at a national level, although that's not likely as it makes too much sense. Hopefully when/if that day comes it will ease some of the pressure of our over populated prison systems.

--------------
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5941 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Schenk wrote:
We do need to lock up many criminals, but IMO we have a high incarceration rate because we have the WRONG laws.

On this I absolutely agree.  In particular marijuana being a schedule 1 drug is a travesty.  IMO this classification was made in 1971 by Congress to create a tool for jailing anti-war demonstrators and other anti-establishment people.  After the Vietnam war ended It proved useful for "the new jim crow".

I think commuting the sentences of all incarcerated people whose only crime was weed possession would free up a lot of space for property crime criminals.  This might have some effect on trailhead security,  not that I'm going start leaving anything of value in my car...
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1903 | TRs
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 7:20 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I understand that folks want to be able to leave gear in their car, but that's just not realistic.  If you leave something in a car, you have to expect it may be taken. 

How could we make people not want to rob cars?   Give people a sense of right and wrong and inspire in them an innate desire to act morally.  That takes a lot of love and attention.   Thankfully, most people live like that, otherwise things would be much worse.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jeff
Ramen Elitist



Joined: 18 Aug 2008
Posts: 2779 | TRs
Location: Someone get me out of Everett, WA
Jeff
  Top

Ramen Elitist
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 7:23 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
It's sad when we have to resort to blaming the victim. I guess it's because we don't blame criminals anymore.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Bernardo
Member
Member


Joined: 08 Feb 2010
Posts: 1903 | TRs
Location: out and about in the world
Bernardo
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 9:10 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
I am on board with blaming the criminals.  But blaming them is different from eliminating them.  It's kind of like problem bears.  What do you do with fed bears?   How did they become fed bears?  Two different questions.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5941 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 10:58 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Jeff wrote:
I guess it's because we don't blame criminals anymore.

Of course it's the criminals fault -- Who said is wasn't.  But fault is irrelevant. 

I mean if everyone kept their car properly maintained, obeyed the speed limit and other traffic laws, paid attention and drove with care -- we wouldn't need seat belts, airbags or insurance for that matter -- but in the real world these are wise things to have.

I like the bear analogy.   If nobody ever left anything worth stealing in their vehicles at trail heads -- there would be fewer trail head thieves because it wouldn't be easy money.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe
Member
Member


Joined: 05 Sep 2011
Posts: 5974 | TRs
Location: Shoreline
olderthanIusedtobe
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 11:08 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
If nobody ever left anything worth stealing in their vehicles at trail heads -- there would be fewer trail head thieves because it wouldn't be easy money.

I keep seeing this.  I'm not entirely convinced.  I've had stuff stolen that had to have literally zero monetary value (really ratty old clothes, ratty old tote bag, detachable face plate for a stereo--twice--that is useless by itself...and a milk jug full of water, to name some items---you cannot sell any of that, even for a few coins).  Also as I mentioned upthread there's the reported trail head vandalism of cars.  Some of this is just malicious behavior with no apparent purpose and certainly no financial reward for the perpetrators.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Chief Joseph
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Nov 2007
Posts: 4665 | TRs
Location: What Verlot Forgot.
Chief Joseph
  Top

Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 11:35 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
True^...tweakers will take strange items, much like raccoons, they like shiny things.

I had my unlocked truck riffled through while I was in Applebees, they opened the center console where I had a coin holder with maybe 5 quarters and a pair of my GF's silky underwear. The coin holder was on the floorboard with the quarters still there, but they took the undies.

I also had 2 pair of sunglasses, one maybe a $20 pair, the other a pair I had just bought at the dollar store, they took the cheepo ones. confused.gif

--------------
Go placidly amid the noise and waste, and remember what comfort there may be in owning a piece thereof.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5941 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostThu Dec 20, 2018 11:54 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
olderthanIusedtobe wrote:
I keep seeing this.† I'm not entirely convinced.  I've had stuff stolen that had to have literally zero monetary value

When people are stealing sh## from your car they aren't going to triage the value of items until they are away from the scene.    If 1 out of 10 thefts yields something of value  -- they will keep doing it.   But if only one out of 200 thefts was profitable -- more thieves would seek easier pickings.

But it's probably irrelevant -- since enough people are going to leave enough stuff behind to make it profitable...   After 50 years of "do not feed the bears" programs in Yellowstone and Yosemite -- tourists still give bears marshmellows.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
MyFootHurts
Huge Member



Joined: 22 Nov 2011
Posts: 749 | TRs
Location: Kekistan
MyFootHurts
  Top

Huge Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2018 2:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
On this I absolutely agree.  In particular marijuana being a schedule 1 drug is a travesty.  IMO this classification was made in 1971 by Congress to create a tool for jailing anti-war demonstrators and other anti-establishment people.  After the Vietnam war ended It proved useful for "the new jim crow".

Like everything else you pretend to be an expert on, you're wrong again as usual.
Marijuana was made illegal by the progressive hero F.D.R.
Drug laws were revamped in 1971 with the creation of the various "schedules".
Marijuana was just as illegal before 1971 as it was afterwards despite your hysterical lies.

https://www.countable.us/articles/849-date-fdr-made-marijuana-illegal-81-years-ago
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
neek
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Sep 2011
Posts: 485 | TRs
Location: Seattle, WA
neek
  Top

Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2018 4:54 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MyFootHurts wrote:
Marijuana was just as illegal before 1971 as it was afterwards

Thanks for the history, interesting stuff.  However, Schedule 1 and the War on Drugs made things much worse for those in the marijuana industry.  Also note the "IMO"--that stands for "in my opinion".

Food for thought:

John Ehrlichman, a Nixon aide wrote:
Nixon ... had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what Iím saying. We knew we couldnít make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities.

The only lie I see is the misspelling of "marshmallow", which is indeed inexcusable.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Brockton
Member
Member


Joined: 02 Aug 2012
Posts: 215 | TRs
Location: West Seattle
Brockton
  Top

Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2018 7:09 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Whoa!  What happened with this thread?  I guess I should have said that the initially posted video featured glitter bombs and fart spray?  smile.gif
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Seventy2002
Member
Member


Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 395 | TRs

Seventy2002
  Top

Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2018 7:47 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker wrote:
I think commuting the sentences of all incarcerated people whose only crime was weed possession would free up a lot of space for property crime criminals.

I seriously doubt anyone in Washington is doing hard time for "weed possession."  In the unlikely event someone got the statutory maximum sentence (1 year) for simple possession before legalization,  they've served their time and have been released.

Only 6.9% of the inmates in the state prison system are there for drug crimes.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
RandyHiker
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 5941 | TRs
Location: Mobile
RandyHiker
  Top

Snarky Member
PostFri Dec 21, 2018 8:52 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MyFootHurts wrote:
Marijuana was just as illegal before 1971 as it was afterwards despite your hysterical lies.

Technically marijuana was fully legal between 1969 and 1971 after the 1937 law was found unconstitutional in a lawsuit by Timothy Leary.

And prior to 1969 arrests and prosecution were minimal, but expanded greatly after 1971

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Cannabis_Arrests.svg
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Full Moon Saloon > The solution to trailhead car thieves?
  Happy Birthday payton!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy