Forum Index > Trail Talk > Spring 2022: Solutions to Trail head break ins. Are there any?
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
zephyr
aka friendly hiker



Joined: 21 Jun 2009
Posts: 3058 | TRs | Pics
Location: West Seattle
zephyr
aka friendly hiker
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 7:15 pm 
Nice work, breadcrumb. I really appreciate your efforts and sincerity. ~z

breadcrumb
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 5990 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 8:40 pm 
Randito wrote:
What if the volunteers are people that are looking for an opportunity to "kick some bad guy's ass"
Good idea, better put this on the recruitment posters.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 908 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 9:03 pm 
breadcrumb wrote:
I have heard from many people who believe that HB 1054 is partially or mostly responsible for the huge surge in property crime in general, including trailhead crime
How would a law changing the standards for police vehicle pursuit have any affect on trailhead crime? It's not like before HB 1054 was passed, the cops were out the woods chasing the bad guys. Before HB 1054 the cops did next to nothing to try to prevent trailhead crime. And after HB 1054 was passed, the cops continue to do next to nothing to try to prevent trailhead crime. There's myriad of factors that contribute to the recent rise in property crimes in Washington State, not just HB 1054.

Cyclopath
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
breadcrumb
Member
Member


Joined: 10 May 2022
Posts: 58 | TRs | Pics
breadcrumb
Member
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 9:27 pm 
altasnob wrote:
How would a law changing the standards for police vehicle pursuit have any affect on trailhead crime? It's not like before HB 1054 was passed, the cops were out the woods chasing the bad guys. Before HB 1054 the cops did next to nothing to try to prevent trailhead crime. And after HB 1054 was passed, the cops continue to do next to nothing to try to prevent trailhead crime. There's myriad of factors that contribute to the recent rise in property crimes in Washington State, not just HB 1054.
To avoid any misunderstandings, I don't have an opinion on whether HB 1054 has played a role or not. It is clear there has been a surge in the number of crimes, but it is not clear (at least to me) what the cause(s) of that surge are. I've heard the following explanations: - more people started hiking after COVID, and the surge in trailhead crime is simply due to the number of extra cars at trailheads. - HB 1054 prevents cops from chasing suspects they used to chase - lots of vacancies in police departments as a result of poor morale, partially due to HB 1054 and partially due to the Governor's COVID mandates None, some, or all of those could be true. If I had to guess, I would guess that all of those things have played a role, but I have no idea how much each contributed to the surge.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 908 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 9:33 pm 
How about real estate prices up 27% in the last year in the Seattle metro area? When you are in a desperate situation, you do desperate things.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8842 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 9:57 pm 
IDK, but I recall a LEO relating to me a high speed chase that they engaged in. It was not an enjoyable experience. I know some PD's are blaming HB 1054 for the uptick in various crimes , but I view that simply as deflection. Oregon and Idaho have no similar law, but their crime rates also bumped up during the pandemic.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 8842 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 10:04 pm 
FWIW: in the public discussion area of the debate on HB 1054 the feed back from police interest on the high speed chase provision was:
Quote:
Vehicular pursuits should be restricted to a degree and the provision in the bill is similar to many department policies. However, law enforcement agencies should be able to pursue drunk drivers and other dangerous persons. The bill is unclear as to the role a supervisor is required to play in pursuits, which is concerning for small jurisdictions. Also, the data collection requirements appear to violate the Keep Washington Working Act. The provision restricting firing upon moving vehicles is overly broad. Sometimes a vehicle can be used as a deadly weapon.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
breadcrumb
Member
Member


Joined: 10 May 2022
Posts: 58 | TRs | Pics
breadcrumb
Member
PostThu Jul 07, 2022 11:07 pm 
As a person who does risk management professionally, I'd like to offer the following for your consideration as we think about whether state law should be changed. Bruce Schneier is widely regarded as one of the top cybersecurity experts in the world. 20 years ago he laid out a simple five step process for thinking about security risk. I recommend his 5-step process to anyone who wants to go further on this topic. Summary: Step 1. What problem does the security measure solve? Step 2. How well does the security measure solve the problem? Step 3. What other security problems does the measure cause? Step 4. What are the costs of the security measure? (Note: Costs are not just financial; they're social as well.) Step 5. Give the above, is it worth the costs? You can apply this process to the problem the state law (HB 1054) was intended to solve, my trailhead security proposal, Reagan Dunn's proposal, and literally any other proposal related to trailhead security. At some point, after I've finished collecting data, I will apply his process myself, but if anyone wants to give it a shot now, I say go for it. LINK: https://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram/archives/2002/0415.html#1

Seventy2002
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12005 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 7:24 am 
breadcrumb wrote:
I have heard from many people who believe that HB 1054 is partially or mostly responsible for the huge surge in property crime in general, including trailhead crime
I would suggest asking the next person you meet who believes that (1) if they actually bothered to read the entire text of the bill, and (2) exactly which part of HB 1054 do they believe prohibits law enforcement from pursuing suspects? For that matter, I'm curious myself about that... I've read it over and over and I'm not finding it. Please point out for me exactly which part of the bill prohibits law enforcement from pursuing suspects.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kevin98208
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 26 | TRs | Pics
kevin98208
Member
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 8:21 am 
Ski wrote:
For that matter, I'm curious myself about that... I've read it over and over and I'm not finding it. Please point out for me exactly which part of the bill prohibits law enforcement from pursuing suspects.
I have read the bill, a lot. I taught a class on the bill. The laws are sometimes difficult to read the way they use "or" and "and" to make either one condition required or all conditions required. A peace officer may not engage in a vehicular pursuit, unless A. 1. There is probable cause to believe that a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a violent offense or sex offense, or 2. There is reasonable suspicion a person in the vehicle has committed or is committing a driving under the influence offense So right there it says law enforcement can only pursue when the person has committed a violent offense or sex offense or impaired driving. The law goes on to list which crimes are considered violent and sex offenses but I left those out of the above text for ease of reading. Property crimes such as car prowling are not considered violent offenses. Thus, law enforcement cannot pursue. Now comes the confusing part. Just because a person has committed a sex offense still does not mean a cop can pursue, as the law contains more provisions of B-D. B. The pursuit is necessary for the purpose of identifying or apprehending the person C. The person poses an imminent threat to the safety of others and the safety risks of failing to apprehend or identify the person are considered to be greater than the safety risks of the vehicular pursuit under the circumstances; and D. Except as provided in (d)(ii) of this subsection, the officer has received authorization to engage in the pursuit from a supervising officer and there is supervisory control of the pursuit See that and at the end of provision C? That means that provisions A (1 or 2), B, C, and D must all be met to pursue. So there is absolutely no way the law allows pursuits for property damage only. Also, each agency has its own policies. The policies can be more strict than the law (limiting pursuits even more) but cannot be broader than the law (allowing pursuits for what the law doesn't allow.) Seattle PD has had a strictly pursuit policy than the law for years, so even though the law says Seattle police may pursue, the Seattle policy did not allow them. Hope this answers your question.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12005 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 8:49 am 
Hope this answers your question. no. not at all. sounds like maybe you missed that part about "B"

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
altasnob
Member
Member


Joined: 29 Aug 2007
Posts: 908 | TRs | Pics
Location: Tacoma
altasnob
Member
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 9:03 am 
kevin98208 wrote:
So there is absolutely no way the law allows pursuits for property damage only.
I'm a former prosecutor and current defense attorney and have read thousands of Washington police reports in my career. I can never recall a report when an officer pursued a vehicle because the suspect committed property damage alone. Maybe it has happened, but it happened rarely (before HB 1054). Most pursuits occur pursuing someone who committed a violent offense (still allowed under HB 1054), a DUI suspect (still allowed), or when someone commits some kind of non-criminal traffic infraction and refuses to pull over (often because they have a warrant for their arrest). So anyone criticizing HB 1054 because it doesn't allow cops to pursue people who commit property crimes are being disingenuous because that did not occur before HB 1054. In the criminal justice system, prosecutors triage cases because they don't have the resources to vigorously prosecute every single crime that occurs. Property crimes are amongst the lowest priority (as they should). Violent crime, DUI, and domestic violence offenses (i.e. crimes where someone can actually be physically harmed) take priority. One instance HB 1054 did change was officer's ability to pursue a vehicle that has been reported as stolen (they can try to stop the vehicle, but if the person refuses to stop, they can't pursue unless the other factors are present). Some may be appalled about this. But in reality, a lot of vehicles I see registered as "stolen" are druggy friends/parents who loaned their car to someone and the person doesn't bring it back and then they call the cops to say it is "stolen." Do you really want the cops driving 90 mph through residential neighborhoods chasing these kinds of stupid cases? It's still illegal to steal a car. It's still illegal to drive a stolen car. But now cops can't put us all in danger by disregarding the traffic laws as they pursue these types of crimes.

SpookyKite89
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
kevin98208
Member
Member


Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 26 | TRs | Pics
kevin98208
Member
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 9:14 am 
Ski wrote:
no. not at all. sounds like maybe you missed that part about "B"
I didnt miss the part about B. The law requires A, and B, and C, and D. It requires all four to be present to pursue. That was what I was trying to convey in my message in how one has to pay attention to the and and ors in a law as it makes a big difference. B does not stand on its own as a requirement to puruse. It is just one of the four conditions needed.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12005 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((>
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 9:40 am 
^ and the recently enacted changed in HB1054 (as the bill was passed) did not by any metric prohibit law enforcement from engaging in vehicle pursuits, which was the point of my post above. There have, since the bill was signed into law, been several "YouTube" videos posted of vehicle pursuits done by King County and Seattle law enforcement. So again, exactly which part of the bill prohibits law enforcement from engaging in pursuits? If your beef is about petty theft and property crimes, please let us know when the last time was (prior to the passage of HB1054) that local law enforcement engaged in a vehicular pursuit because of a petty theft of property crime? When did that happen?

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 5990 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostFri Jul 08, 2022 9:49 am 
breadcrumb wrote:
To avoid any misunderstandings, I don't have an opinion on whether HB 1054 has played a role or not. It is clear there has been a surge in the number of crimes, but it is not clear (at least to me) what the cause(s) of that surge are. I've heard the following explanations: - more people started hiking after COVID, and the surge in trailhead crime is simply due to the number of extra cars at trailheads. - HB 1054 prevents cops from chasing suspects they used to chase - lots of vacancies in police departments as a result of poor morale, partially due to HB 1054 and partially due to the Governor's COVID mandates
- the rise of K Pop - Russia's invasion of Ukraine - CRISPR - Elon Musk trying to buy Twitter These are guesses and not a complete list. If anybody wants to learn, this thread is not the place for it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Spring 2022: Solutions to Trail head break ins. Are there any?
  Happy Birthday Adi, flatsqwerl, Rachael, Brushbuffalo, Croffy!
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