On November 23 2009 10:49 IntoTheWow wrote: Also I don't know why you defend this method so much. Why not just patrol the streets and persecute the people that commit the crimes on their own without a set up.
edit:
Also I don't see how the seriousness of the crime or how often it happens affects the morals of the law.
We are not debating if we should use this method in X or Y cases. We are debating whether it's moral or not for the law to use this methods in the first place. So it doesn't matter if crime happens 100 or 1,000 times a year.
These stings are in controlled environments and with vehicles that can be shutoff remotely. Yes I think it is moral to have sting operations like this. Even if they do make it incredibly easy to take the car, its still catching criminals. Also people who are inclined to steal something as expensive as a car are probably people involved in other crimes. For example, the girl in the OP video had warrants.
Patrolling the streets not knowing where to look takes time, manpower, and money. It's also safer if they know where a crime is going to be committed, so they can position themselves and know the layout of any escape routes.
Seriously, I don't see why IntotheWow is so annoyed at this. The people are obviously thieves, they knew what they were doing is wrong. Just because the police are waving around some bait dont mean they have to take it. If I see someone's wallet on a restaurant table, I'm not gonna just walk up to it and jack it. And having had my car been broken into before, I have no sympathy for these type of people.
I always loved anything to do with entrapment. Entrap away, I say. Make entrapment not only completely legal, give large amounts of police budget to entrapment. Entrap drug dealers, pimps, child rapists, whatever the fuck you can think of. Entrapment is the way forward to a brighter tomorrow
It's better to catch criminals hurting fake people than catch them hurting real ones. It's the fair step between Orwellian Pre-Crime and simply following trails of bodies.
On November 23 2009 11:11 pokeyAA wrote: Seriously, I don't see why IntotheWow is so annoyed at this. The people are obviously thieves, they knew what they were doing is wrong. Just because the police are waving around some bait dont mean they have to take it. If I see someone's wallet on a restaurant table, I'm not gonna just walk up to it and jack it. And having had my car been broken into before, I have no sympathy for these type of people.
In this particular video yeah. But are you sure it's going to be the same for every single case? Once you allow this kind of stuff, the line the law can cross blurs and you will start seeing shady shit. Stuff like it happens already, and I think it would happen more often if this practices were used more often.
Where do you set the limit? How do you control the limit/agents?
Okay although this stuff is hilarious I still have to object to it. There's a huge discrepancy between saying you wouldn't do something and not actually doing something if the situation presents itself. This is NOT a good way to reduce or prevent crime. It just creates an unrealistic scenario to frame idiots, adding an unnecessary extra burden on the taxpayers' money. Ofcourse 2 idiots are gonna joyride the car.
This is definitely not entrapment. Not even close. A sensible person does not just steal an idle car. That is ridiculous. If you steal an idle car you are a thief. Period.
On November 23 2009 11:46 Mastermind wrote: This is definitely not entrapment. Not even close. A sensible person does not just steal an idle car. That is ridiculous. If you steal an idle car you are a thief. Period.
A sensible person also doesn't leave a car in the middle of the street with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighbourhood.
Did you know that the number one reason people don't steal the car in that situation is because they couldn't get away with it? Noone actually thinks, 'oh stealing is so bad, better not do it'. The number two reason for not stealing it is 'because if everyone stole, the world would be a shitty place', which leaves about 2% of the population who actually act out of morality.
If I see a car like this, I'm calling the cops from a prepaid phone and telling them I saw a suspicious man put a package under it and then get out and leave.
On November 23 2009 11:46 Mastermind wrote: This is definitely not entrapment. Not even close. A sensible person does not just steal an idle car. That is ridiculous. If you steal an idle car you are a thief. Period.
A sensible person also doesn't leave a car in the middle of the street with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighbourhood.
Did you know that the number one reason people don't steal the car in that situation is because they couldn't get away with it? Noone actually thinks, 'oh stealing is so bad, better not do it'. The number two reason for not stealing it is 'because if everyone stole, the world would be a shitty place', which leaves about 2% of the population who actually act out of morality.
I personally wouldn't steal something because I would feel guilty, because it was bad. I think alot more people think the same way contrary to that random percentage you made up.
Someone who walks up to a situation like a bait car and would steal it deserves to be arrested.
On November 23 2009 10:49 IntoTheWow wrote: Also I don't know why you defend this method so much. Why not just patrol the streets and persecute the people that commit the crimes on their own without a set up.
edit:
Also I don't see how the seriousness of the crime or how often it happens affects the morals of the law.
We are not debating if we should use this method in X or Y cases. We are debating whether it's moral or not for the law to use this methods in the first place. So it doesn't matter if crime happens 100 or 1,000 times a year.
These stings are in controlled environments and with vehicles that can be shutoff remotely. Yes I think it is moral to have sting operations like this. Even if they do make it incredibly easy to take the car, its still catching criminals. Also people who are inclined to steal something as expensive as a car are probably people involved in other crimes. For example, the girl in the OP video had warrants.
Patrolling the streets not knowing where to look takes time, manpower, and money. It's also safer if they know where a crime is going to be committed, so they can position themselves and know the layout of any escape routes.
How is it moral? Those people are only criminals because they fall for a scenario created by the people that should uphold the law. You can't label someone a criminal before he has actually comitted a crime. All they're doing is solving the crime they created themselves. This is the most counter productive thing I have ever seen.
There's absolutely no way this will reduce crime since a crime is dependant on person + situation, where the situation variable is way more relevant. The chances that they catch someone who is actually looking to steal a car before this situation presented itself is really small. Not to mention that NOONE leaves their car with the keys still in it. Does anyone here even wonder why we put locks on things? Because it reduces crime. If crime were completely dependent on personality there would be no point in locking things, since it wouldn't affect crime rates.
On November 23 2009 11:46 Mastermind wrote: This is definitely not entrapment. Not even close. A sensible person does not just steal an idle car. That is ridiculous. If you steal an idle car you are a thief. Period.
A sensible person also doesn't leave a car in the middle of the street with the keys in the ignition in a crappy neighbourhood.
Did you know that the number one reason people don't steal the car in that situation is because they couldn't get away with it? Noone actually thinks, 'oh stealing is so bad, better not do it'. The number two reason for not stealing it is 'because if everyone stole, the world would be a shitty place', which leaves about 2% of the population who actually act out of morality.
I personally wouldn't steal something because I would feel guilty, because it was bad. I think alot more people think the same way contrary to that random percentage you made up.
Someone who walks up to a situation like a bait car and would steal it deserves to be arrested.
Way to miss my point. I'm saying that EVERYONE says that they wouldn't steal a car, until the situation actually presents itself. Saying that you would feel guilty is just a justification because you know you would get busted, it doesn't mean anything, you're just making yourself seem like a better person because this is a built in mechanism all humans do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error).
Also you just made up that I made that percentage it up, since I actually didn't. :p I remember the study pretty clearly from a lecture.
The law isn't getting people to commit crimes, if I put you alone in a museum full of expensive stuff it still illegal for you to take anything, its like people don't think they have to have any self control, because the law should make it impossible for them to commit crimes.
Still though, in this case its not really preventing anything, these people wouldn't have commited the crime if the car wasn't there, but then its sending a message, you steal a car and you might be stealing a car like this.
EPT
