• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The behaviour of US police officers - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't understand this take by some people. Car thieves generally don't steal vehicles while police are within visible range of the act, so what magical but apparently obvious means of theft-prevention or -reduction are we blaming the police for not using?

If two car manufacturers are selling cars that are exceptionally easy to steal compared to other vehicles in their class, and statistics show that those particular models are indeed being stolen in outsized numbers, then suing those manufacturers for creating a demonstrable public safety hazard is exactly the right kind of action a local government should be taking on behalf of its residents, it seems to me.
 
Checkmite said:
I don't understand this take by some people. Car thieves generally don't steal vehicles while police are within visible range of the act, so what magical but apparently obvious means of theft-prevention or -reduction are we blaming the police for not using?

If two car manufacturers are selling cars that are exceptionally easy to steal compared to other vehicles in their class, and statistics show that those particular models are indeed being stolen in outsized numbers, then suing those manufacturers for creating a demonstrable public safety hazard is exactly the right kind of action a local government should be taking on behalf of its residents, it seems to me.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree with your second paragraph, I think the concern is that there are car thieves stealing multiple cars that aren't being caught. The police can't catch everyone who commits crimes, but one would hope there would be strategies available to catch serial car thieves.
 
The issue of what is exceptionally easy is a bit clouded here. It is true that without an immobilizer, a car can be stolen in the way cars always used to be stolen, and older ones still can. You break into the car, disable the alarm if it has one, smash into the steering column, jimmy the steering lock, jump the ignition, and start the car.

In other words, you still cannot do this without committing a couple of pretty conspicuous crimes.

The theft of Hyundais and Kias has become fashionable because of this, but largely because of the publicity. Nobody ordinarily would care to steal my ten year old bottom-line Hyundai, because it's virtually worthless. But it's become a prank to steal and joyride.

I can see a point to requiring more anti-theft measures going forward, but the suits smack of retroactive laws. In what way do these suits differ from suing every manufacturer of every vehicle made before immobilizers became common, which might still be on the road?

In the meantime, if you have one of those cars, and have to park in a bad place, get it fitted with a hidden switch somewhere, or pull out a fuse or relay. It will still be broken into, of course, but since it's not a valuable source of parts, it will stay in place and not be towed away.
 
Man, just wait till these governments find out about cash, credit cards and their numbers, cel phones, jewelry and the metric **** ton of other things that have been made easy to steal.
 
Police in Ohio have, finally, released the body cam videos of the slaying of a pregnant woman, incorrectly, accused of stealing some booze. One office put himself in the front of left of her car, and pulled his gun. The other officer was ordering her out of the vehicle from the driver's side of the car. When she turned the wheels right, away from the officer in front of the vehicle, the officer moves with it, the car begins to move, and he shoots her.

It was wrong to put yourself in front of the vehicle. That's just stupid and against training. Pulling the weapon was also unjustified and of course the 'fight or flight' response means in that situation either choice was going to lead to tragedy. Stupid and pointless is no way to police.
 
tyr_13 said:
Police in Ohio have, finally, released the body cam videos of the slaying of a pregnant woman, incorrectly, accused of stealing some booze. One office put himself in the front of left of her car, and pulled his gun. The other officer was ordering her out of the vehicle from the driver's side of the car. When she turned the wheels right, away from the officer in front of the vehicle, the officer moves with it, the car begins to move, and he shoots her.

It was wrong to put yourself in front of the vehicle. That's just stupid and against training. Pulling the weapon was also unjustified and of course the 'fight or flight' response means in that situation either choice was going to lead to tragedy. Stupid and pointless is no way to police.
Click to expand...

I believe her last words were, "are you going to shoot me?". The whole debacle lasted a minute.
 
Make yourself so dangerous and murderous that ordinary people panic in the belief that they're going to be murdered, then use their panic as an excuse for doing exactly what they feared.
 
Meanwhile, where there is gun control;

https://www.gov.uk/government/stati...cs-england-and-wales-april-2022-to-march-2023

"There were 18,395 firearms operations in the year ending 31 March 2023....There were 10 incidents in which police firearms were intentionally discharged (fired) at persons in the year ending 31 March 2023."

That is 0.054% of incidents the UK armed police are called to, that they use their guns.
 
bruto said:
Make yourself so dangerous and murderous that ordinary people panic in the belief that they're going to be murdered, then use their panic as an excuse for doing exactly what they feared.
Click to expand...

Ordinary criminals maybe. All of the evidence suggests that Young had intended to steal alcohol. Some articles say she set the booze down in the store because she had been caught. Reportedly, employees recognized her because she had stolen from there before. The car she was driving had no license plate, and had been backed into what looks like a handicap stall. So, parked close and ready for a quick getaway. As I recall, the weapon was not drawn until after she started up the car. Prior to that, she had been told to exit the vehicle multiple times to sort out what's what.

All of that said, even if she had shoplifted, the cop shouln't've positioned himself in front of the vehicle. That was dumb and possibly went against his training. If it did not violate his training, then he should have had better training. The cops also bark orders, which seem to needlessly escalate things (but it's also understandable when suddenly interrupted and unexpectedly chasing someone down).

If article comments are any indication, most ordinary law-abiding citizens are on the side of the police. They can imagine themselves acting like the police officers. It's going to be more difficult to imagine themselves acting like someone who planned to steal and then ignored lawful orders.

Free abortion though.
 
Cain said:
Ordinary criminals maybe. All of the evidence suggests that Young had intended to steal alcohol. Some articles say she set the booze down in the store because she had been caught. Reportedly, employees recognized her because she had stolen from there before. The car she was driving had no license plate, and had been backed into what looks like a handicap stall. So, parked close and ready for a quick getaway. As I recall, the weapon was not drawn until after she started up the car. Prior to that, she had been told to exit the vehicle multiple times to sort out what's what.

All of that said, even if she had shoplifted, the cop shouln't've positioned himself in front of the vehicle. That was dumb and possibly went against his training. If it did not violate his training, then he should have had better training. The cops also bark orders, which seem to needlessly escalate things (but it's also understandable when suddenly interrupted and unexpectedly chasing someone down).

If article comments are any indication, most ordinary law-abiding citizens are on the side of the police. They can imagine themselves acting like the police officers. It's going to be more difficult to imagine themselves acting like someone who planned to steal and then ignored lawful orders.

Free abortion though.
Click to expand...

In a country with a functioning police force like Ireland, yes. In a country like the USA, I would consider it brainless to be on the side of the police as an ordinary citizen.
 
Gulliver Foyle said:
In a country with a functioning police force like Ireland, yes. In a country like the USA, I would consider it brainless to be on the side of the police as an ordinary citizen.
Click to expand...

Even in a country like the UK, the police are often right.
 
bruto said:
I can see a point to requiring more anti-theft measures going forward, but the suits smack of retroactive laws. In what way do these suits differ from suing every manufacturer of every vehicle made before immobilizers became common, which might still be on the road?
Click to expand...

I would say the difference is immediately self-evident; you can't hold someone liable for not including technology that didn't even exist yet, or that they didn't have access to, or that hadn't yet been proven effective.

At one point in history seatbelts were an experimental option, and then airbags. Enough time has passed since immobilizers became widely standard features, including in other vehicles these very manufacturers have made before, that leaving them out can be treated as negligence.
 
lomiller said:
I get a certain satisfaction from US video's of Sovereign Citizens being dragged out of their vehicles and arrested.
Click to expand...

The best ones of those are the ones in which Mr Sparky gets deployed, with hilarious consequences.
 
Checkmite said:
I would say the difference is immediately self-evident; you can't hold someone liable for not including technology that didn't even exist yet, or that they didn't have access to, or that hadn't yet been proven effective.

At one point in history seatbelts were an experimental option, and then airbags. Enough time has passed since immobilizers became widely standard features, including in other vehicles these very manufacturers have made before, that leaving them out can be treated as negligence.
Click to expand...

But seat belts were not required even after they had long been in existence, and proven effective. Same with airbags. Same with remote keyfobs, central locking and alarms. There are plenty of vehicles with optional safety setups, such as lane change detection, proximity brakes, and so forth, but manufacturers are not required to retrofit them to every car they made that lacks them. And that is true of immobilizers too. Many vehicles were equipped with transducer keys as an option before it became common for all.

It may well be that they should have included it but a feature is not mandatory until it becomes mandatory.
 
dirtywick said:
ordinary citizens don't use article comments, that's for psychos
Click to expand...

It's well known that the best representative sample groups come from local news comment sections. Statisticians and the legal system use data gleaned from them on a consistent basis, all the way up to the Supreme Court. This is as well formed an idea as that of innocent people rationally having no fear of being shot by the police. No innocent person would be made to crawl along the floor crying and begging for his life before being shot dead and his murderer being given no meaningful punishment because of his status as a cop.

The booze having not been stolen is also evidence the deceased is a criminal for similar reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom