I saw this on TV. It's a bit ridiculous and seems like entrapment.
What is Bait Car? A criminal walks past an empty car with its engine running. He looks around, but sees no owner. So he steals the vehicle. Unfortunately for him, the police are watching his every move with a hidden video camera they installed on the dashboard. The officers press a button and shut down the automobile and the thief is led away in handcuffs. He's been snared with a Bait Car.
kutegirl Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 1 What About Morality? What have reality tv come to? People are now so desperate for entertainment that now they are sending young men to jail, taking away their voting rights and opportunity to find jobs by setting them up. I once thought our jails and prisons were filled. Apparently they are not. This is very evident in this reality show called Bait. I happened to see this show once and was appalled at what was taking place on my tv screen.
People in poor neighborhoods being set up for entertainment. How is it morally correct to set up brand new SUV's in poor sections of towns with the keys in the ignition and not expect anyone to take it? It is set-up in every aspect of the word. The men who are responsible for this atrocity, make claims that they do it to rid the streets of car thieves. They must not have watched movies like "Gone in 60 Seconds". Real car thieves do not go after baited cars, they have sense. The only people they are catching are poor teenagers looking for joy rides, impressing girls or friends, or hoping to make some money for their starving families. I think America has sunk to the lowest of lows making reality shows such as this. Look at what we are doing to our children all for ratings. These men are using racial profiling in these neighborhoods, targeting Mexicans, Hispanics, and Blacks. They parked these cars in the ghettos, and shopping malls in poor towns knowing they will catch a bait.
I feel those who are responsible for this show should be ashamed of themselves and what this country represents. There is no way it should be right to set a candy on the stove and not expect a child to take it. This is what these cops are doing. Placing nice SUV's in poor areas and watching from cameras for those who unsuspectingly think they are getting a free ride. Then pull them over and arrest them for taking the bait. Where are parents with children that could get caught in one of these baits. Where are the activists that are out there protesting about taking God off money? These are the things we should be speaking out against, the injustice of these officers trying to make their quota and using the prison system filled with innocents baits to rob tax payers of their money. We should all be ashamed of ourselves for even turning to this channel.
i think it's great! personally i find it rather funny. I don't watch the show on a regular basis or wait for it to come on, but if i was flipping through the channels i would stop and watch.
I don't understand why you are so up in arms about this?
Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
On November 23 2009 10:00 Snet wrote: Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
Car thieves are not random people finding a car with keys and unlocked in the street. You are setting them up.
If the idea is so good, why don't we start leaving cellphones on the floor with a GPS system. When somebody picks it up and doesn't return it, we can track them down and send them to jail too!
The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
On November 23 2009 10:00 Snet wrote: Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
Car thieves are not random people finding a car with keys and unlocked in the street. You are setting them up.
If the idea is so good, why don't we start leaving cellphones on the floor with a GPS system. When somebody picks it up and doesn't return it, we can track them down and send them to jail too!
The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
I see this shit all the time where I live, some people even leave the car running. People who steal a car that's been planted are no different then people who would hot wire a car and take off. They choose to steal something that isn't theirs, the only difference is they think they are the luckiest people in the world because it took no effort.
I'd like to see when someone takes the keys out of the car, locks it, and sits and waits for the owner to return. Then when the cops come and explain, call em dicks and sue.
On November 23 2009 10:05 IntoTheWow wrote: The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
Arguably this is what is happening in sting operations, yet no one seems to sympathise with the drug dealers v0v
Setting up someone who you know has committed a crime in the past, but you can't catch is different from setting up civilians randomly.
If the idea is so good let's start leaving tracked devices everywhere then!
I'm sure the police would if it was worth their time. Setting up a sting operation for a $200 phone and a misdemeanor fine is quite a bit different then setting up a sting operation for a $25,000 car and a felony arrest.
Not to mention my definition of a civilian is not someone who would steal a car if it was easy.
On November 23 2009 10:00 Snet wrote: Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
Car thieves are not random people finding a car with keys and unlocked in the street. You are setting them up.
If the idea is so good, why don't we start leaving cellphones on the floor with a GPS system. When somebody picks it up and doesn't return it, we can track them down and send them to jail too!
The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
I see this shit all the time where I live, some people even leave the car running. People who steal a car that's been planted are no different then people who would hot wire a car and take off. They choose to steal something that isn't theirs, the only difference is they think they are the luckiest people in the world because it took no effort.
Yeah sure. Then let's tempt them even more. Throw money in the car. Maybe leave the car in a very obscure place where nobody is watching!
There's difference, cause you are offering a ridiculous scenario for someone to steal the money. The person wouldn't normally commit a crime in another situation.
You are saying it's the same to steal 500,000 us$ from a bank/house than finding a bag with that amount of money in the streets?
On November 23 2009 10:19 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: seriously, you know why they do this? because law-abiding citizens are gonna walk right past an idling vehicle
what are they gonna say? "well i wouldn't have tried to steal it if i knew it was a bait car!!!!". strong legal defense ya got there
I agree, i don't think this is nearly as much entrapment as "To Catch a Predator" where pedophiles are pretty much forced to come to a girl they never would have met if it weren't for these people.
This is not entrapment. Entrapment is if the thieves were induced to commit a crime they wouldn't normally commit. The fact that they'd hop in and drive away in the bait car suggests they'd do the same somewhere else, if a normal person left their keys in the car.
On November 23 2009 10:00 Snet wrote: Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
Car thieves are not random people finding a car with keys and unlocked in the street. You are setting them up.
If the idea is so good, why don't we start leaving cellphones on the floor with a GPS system. When somebody picks it up and doesn't return it, we can track them down and send them to jail too!
The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
I see this shit all the time where I live, some people even leave the car running. People who steal a car that's been planted are no different then people who would hot wire a car and take off. They choose to steal something that isn't theirs, the only difference is they think they are the luckiest people in the world because it took no effort.
Yeah sure. Then let's tempt them even more. Throw money in the car. Maybe leave the car in a very obscure place where nobody is watching!
There's difference, cause you are offering a ridiculous scenario for someone to steal the money. The person wouldn't normally commit a crime in another situation.
You are saying it's the same to steal 500,000 us$ from a bank/house than finding a bag with that amount of money in the streets?
Lol technically stealing is stealing, but your comparisons to try and prove your point are absolutely ridiculous. You don't see bags of money being left around the streets. You do however find cars unlocked, and sometime with keys in them.
These sting operations are realistic situations that you would see in real life.
Once a tv shows start to leave a duffel bag of straight up cash in the streets, then I will agree with you.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
people who will break the law will break the law either way. Its just easier for them to commit the act when the keys are in the ignition.
On November 23 2009 10:00 Snet wrote: Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
Car thieves are not random people finding a car with keys and unlocked in the street. You are setting them up.
If the idea is so good, why don't we start leaving cellphones on the floor with a GPS system. When somebody picks it up and doesn't return it, we can track them down and send them to jail too!
The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
I see this shit all the time where I live, some people even leave the car running. People who steal a car that's been planted are no different then people who would hot wire a car and take off. They choose to steal something that isn't theirs, the only difference is they think they are the luckiest people in the world because it took no effort.
Yeah sure. Then let's tempt them even more. Throw money in the car. Maybe leave the car in a very obscure place where nobody is watching!
There's difference, cause you are offering a ridiculous scenario for someone to steal the money. The person wouldn't normally commit a crime in another situation.
You are saying it's the same to steal 500,000 us$ from a bank/house than finding a bag with that amount of money in the streets?
Lol technically stealing is stealing, but your comparisons to try and prove your point are absolutely ridiculous. You don't see bags of money being left around the streets. You do however find cars unlocked, and sometime with keys in them.
I would like a source for this. Specially cause I have read lots of reports of people finding briefcases with lots of money inside and them being returned (this are the cases the usually hit the news, the ones not found don't).
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
Around here the motto is, "To protect and serve". Getting people behind bars using a bait car is protecting us from them getting arrested while stealing, and possibly damaging, a civilian's car.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
Around here the motto is, "To protect and serve". Getting people behind bars using a bait car is protecting us from them getting arrested while stealing, and possibly damaging, a civilian's car.
Yeah, you could have undercover agents insulting people in the streets, and if one reacts and punches the officer, arrest him. It's a nice way for protecting us from violent people.
On November 23 2009 10:00 Snet wrote: Fantastic way of catching car thieves imo. I don't see how it's bad to trick someone into stealing a bait car rather then waiting for them to steal a civilians car.
Car thieves are not random people finding a car with keys and unlocked in the street. You are setting them up.
If the idea is so good, why don't we start leaving cellphones on the floor with a GPS system. When somebody picks it up and doesn't return it, we can track them down and send them to jail too!
The law shouldn't be tempting people to commit crimes.
I see this shit all the time where I live, some people even leave the car running. People who steal a car that's been planted are no different then people who would hot wire a car and take off. They choose to steal something that isn't theirs, the only difference is they think they are the luckiest people in the world because it took no effort.
Yeah sure. Then let's tempt them even more. Throw money in the car. Maybe leave the car in a very obscure place where nobody is watching!
There's difference, cause you are offering a ridiculous scenario for someone to steal the money. The person wouldn't normally commit a crime in another situation.
You are saying it's the same to steal 500,000 us$ from a bank/house than finding a bag with that amount of money in the streets?
Lol technically stealing is stealing, but your comparisons to try and prove your point are absolutely ridiculous. You don't see bags of money being left around the streets. You do however find cars unlocked, and sometime with keys in them.
I would like a source for this. Specially cause I have read lots of reports of people finding briefcases with lots of money inside and them being returned (this are the cases the usually hit the news, the ones not found don't).
There are thousands upon thousands of people in America with felony grand theft auto records. There are what a few cases of random cash being found a year? It's just not a normal occurrence dude. Stealing cars is a problem that effects alot of people on a regular basis, and shows almost no sign of stopping.
I am having a hard time understanding why you continue to defend this comparison. And asking for sources in this conversation is just retarded. It would be like someone asking for a source when someone tells you more people are caught buying/selling drugs than finding a plasma TV abandoned in an alleyway.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
Around here the motto is, "To protect and serve". Getting people behind bars using a bait car is protecting us from them getting arrested while stealing, and possibly damaging, a civilian's car.
Yeah, you could have undercover agents insulting people in the streets, and if one reacts and punches the officer, arrest him. It's a nice way for protecting us from violent people.
Now I would agree with you there. Provoking someone to punch an undercover officer with the intent to arrest them for aggravated assault would be entrapment.
Now I hope you could agree with me entering a car that is not yours and stealing it is alot different then the comparison you just made.
Yeah it's different. The same way it's different someone running into a car with open doors and keys left there and taking it than somebody violating a car's security to steal it.
You don't like the money bag analogy? Fine. How about lost cellphones?
Would you set up a similar kind of system leaving cellphones in random places for people to take them? Would you arrest the people taking the cellphones?
There's a study on how the surroundings of a robbery affect people to perform those crimes. If you are really interested in this stuff, I recommend you reading an article about the "broken windows theory".
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.
On November 23 2009 10:50 YPang wrote: what was more funny is that this video further strengthens the stereotypes.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used this kind of shit only on certain places. But I also wouldn't be surprised when people came and defended this attitude by saying it's ok to do them in places where the crime rates are higher.
On November 23 2009 10:46 IntoTheWow wrote: Yeah it's different. The same way it's different someone running into a car with open doors and keys left there and taking it than somebody violating a car's security to steal it.
You don't like the money bag analogy? Fine. How about lost cellphones?
Would you set up a similar kind of system leaving cellphones in random places for people to take them? Would you arrest the people taking the cellphones?
There's a study on how the surroundings of a robbery affect people to perform those crimes. If you are really interested in this stuff, I recommend you reading an article about the "broken windows theory".
I would see no problem in a situation like having someone leave their phone at a table in a restaurant then going to the bathroom and catching someone stealing it. I would absolutely agree with charging someone who takes something that isn't there's.
If someone found a cell phone in a store on the floor and took it, they should get fined at the very least if it was possible to catch them and prove they were going to keep it, and not trying to return it.
Like I said earlier, if police had the time and money to setup stings for these trivial things they probably would. And I would agree with it.
On November 23 2009 11:01 Spike wrote: Gut reaction was this isn't entrapment. No problem with morality for me when the perpetrators also acted immorally.
C'mon now, this isn't like finding a phone on the sidewalk. It's a fucking car.
Who would walk by a car, engines running or no, and think to get in and drive away? A short prison sentence or decent fine is alright with me.
and it isn't even a cheap car, its a pretty expensive exclade or w/e its called.
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.
On November 23 2009 12:03 Frits wrote: 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.
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.
In small towns, however, it's fairly common to see people leave their cars running on the street if they're just going to be 5 minutes in a store. It's not an entirely absurd scenario.
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.
In small towns, however, it's fairly common to see people leave their cars running on the street if they're just going to be 5 minutes in a store. It's not an entirely absurd scenario.
But they didn't leave their car in the middle of a small town........
Intothewow is delusional....next hes gona tell us that cops shouldnt set up people trying to buy hookers, drugs, or anything like that.
This is simply part of police officers jobs. Plain and simple law abiding citiznes would simply walk by the car or maybe even report the vehicle to the police or the store its parked in front of. Useless criminals are the ones trying to steal it.
that episode in the 9th ward is pretty enraging, its basically like news flash, if you leave a car open with key in it, it will get jacked in one of the worst ghettos in America. Congrats
On November 23 2009 12:03 Frits wrote: 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.
Are those from the same show? Those look like different scenarios to me. Obviously if you increase the chance of getting caught in a realistic car theft situation, car theft will decrease. I was talking about unrealistic situations being immoral.
Also, correlation =/= causation, there's no mention if there were any other measures etc. And I said crime wouldn't drop, all this did was reduce car theft. Posting one statistic is not saying all that much, even if it seems promising.
obviously the goal of this is to reduce car theft, and it has. obviously it's not meant to reduce "crime" as a generalization. given the context of this thread the definition of "crime" in your post should only pertain to car theft, otherwise we're talking about apples and oranges here and whats the point
On November 23 2009 12:34 zulu_nation8 wrote: I think the real problem is, this is fine if its not a reality show and not made for television.
I agree that this most certainly should not be a television show, amusing as it may sometimes be.
I appreciate the arguments of IntotheWow, and I'm not sure where I'd draw the line.
As an example of a 'sting' operation which I support, I've heard of police officers posing as drunks or other vulnerable people in order to draw out and catch muggers. Muggers are a physical threat to many people, and I see their removal with this method as justified.
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.
How is stealing something not a crime? All the police are doing is making it easy to do. That's why I agree with bait car stings. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's not a crime.
People do leave keys in their car, people do leave their cars running. Sure, it's not smart but it does happen. My uncle worked at a gas station for the majority of his adult life and he told me countless stories of people coming into the store and going out to find their car missing because they left the keys in the ignition.
On November 23 2009 12:19 Fixed wrote: Intothewow is delusional....next hes gona tell us that cops shouldnt set up people trying to buy hookers, drugs, or anything like that.
This is simply part of police officers jobs. Plain and simple law abiding citiznes would simply walk by the car or maybe even report the vehicle to the police or the store its parked in front of. Useless criminals are the ones trying to steal it.
On November 23 2009 12:31 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: that's a semantics argument frits
obviously the goal of this is to reduce car theft, and it has. obviously it's not meant to reduce "crime" as a generalization. given the context of this thread the definition of "crime" in your post should only pertain to car theft, otherwise we're talking about apples and oranges here and whats the point
Ofcourse it's apples and oranges since they're two different things. Doesn't change the fact that you're ignoring the bigger picture and base your thoughts on potentially misleading statistics.
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.
How is stealing something not a crime? All the police are doing is making it easy to do. That's why I agree with bait car stings. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's not a crime.
People do leave keys in their car, people do leave their cars running. Sure, it's not smart but it does happen. My uncle worked at a gas station for the majority of his adult life and he told me countless stories of people coming into the store and going out to find their car missing because they left the keys in the ignition.
Stuff like this does happen.
I never said it's not a crime. I never said anything even close to that. You create a completely new statement that's incredibly easy to refute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
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.
In small towns, however, it's fairly common to see people leave their cars running on the street if they're just going to be 5 minutes in a store. It's not an entirely absurd scenario.
But they didn't leave their car in the middle of a small town........
That's irrelevant to my argument and clearly acknowledged by my quoting of your post and the word "however". If we can agree that, in many contexts, one can leave their car running for a few minutes and expect it to be there when one returns, we can't make the blanket statement that it's an unrealistic scenario and that it would be impossible for average people to resist stealing them.
I don't think bait cars in Canada left the cars running with the ignition in them? I think they just left a few cars all over the town that looked easy to steal and they would be notified whenever one was stolen. I think it's a bit different when the person has to jimmy the door and hotwire the car or something instead of just opening the door and driving off.
The woman in the video are clearly dishonest and one of them already said she had a warrant for her arrest, but they don't appear to be car thieves. Doubt this is going to do anything for prevention by catching people that aren't even real car thieves.
I think a better sting operation is to leave unlocked bicycles by stores with GPS in them and wait for them to get stolen. Because we've all probably been in a situation where we've had to leave our bicycle unlocked while we ran into a place and worried about it getting stolen, so that's a real crime that happens all the time, unlike the abandoned running car with unlocked doors thefts.
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.
How is stealing something not a crime? All the police are doing is making it easy to do. That's why I agree with bait car stings. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's not a crime.
People do leave keys in their car, people do leave their cars running. Sure, it's not smart but it does happen. My uncle worked at a gas station for the majority of his adult life and he told me countless stories of people coming into the store and going out to find their car missing because they left the keys in the ignition.
Stuff like this does happen.
I never said it's not a crime. I never said anything even close to that.
The part about "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." came off alot like you were saying they aren't criminals because they fell for a trap. I see I misunderstood.
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.
In small towns, however, it's fairly common to see people leave their cars running on the street if they're just going to be 5 minutes in a store. It's not an entirely absurd scenario.
But they didn't leave their car in the middle of a small town........
That's irrelevant to my argument and clearly acknowledged by my quoting of your post and the word "however". If we can agree that, in many contexts, one can leave their car running for a few minutes and expect it to be there when one returns, we can't make the blanket statement that it's an unrealistic scenario and that it would be impossible for average people to resist stealing them.
Clearly this does happen; it's not some fantasy manufactured by the police to lure people who would not normally steal cars into stealing cars.
Enough with the strawmen, I didn't say it's a manufactured fantasy I said it's unrealistic. They leave these cars out there until someone stumbles upon them, not leave them for 5 minutes in places that are likely to have cars with keys still in them (at gas stations etc, where the likeliness of criminals waiting to steal something is much larger). If you leave a car out in the open for a large amount of time the likeliness of it getting stolen increases until it reaches eventually 100%.
This is not proving anything, the police are just creating statistics to look good. They're preventing car theft because they create so many car thefts and instantly solve them that the amount of real car thefts are left ignored. The crime rates of car theft probably rose with 70% when they started doing these busts before they dropped 70%.
Also you said it's common in small towns. I said it's irrelevant. And suddenly it's relevant because it happens rarely in cities? That doesn't make sense.
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.
How is stealing something not a crime? All the police are doing is making it easy to do. That's why I agree with bait car stings. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's not a crime.
People do leave keys in their car, people do leave their cars running. Sure, it's not smart but it does happen. My uncle worked at a gas station for the majority of his adult life and he told me countless stories of people coming into the store and going out to find their car missing because they left the keys in the ignition.
Stuff like this does happen.
I never said it's not a crime. I never said anything even close to that. You create a completely new statement that's incredibly easy to refute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
Sorry, I didn't see your edit. I don't understand what in my post relates to the straw man theory?
Man, I'm getting a headache from reading all these links, haha. I'll check back tomorrow on what you say, this is all pretty interesting.
Edit:
Oh, are you saying that the uncle part doesn't relate to cops setting people up? If so all I'm trying to say is cops aren't setting up unrealistic scenarios, this stuff does happen.
I think its reasonable to assume areas with high car theft are areas with high crime rates in every category. People are more likely to steal not because they are missing some moral backbone that nice white folks happen to magically possess but because those black people getting caught on the show are poor, have no education and can not find jobs. Enticing people in poverty to steal is exploitation. Please don't compare this to yourself and say, "I would never do this" so it's ok for those people to go to jail because you are not those people. This is what happens when each instance of crime is taken out of context to be examined like universal law. This might be a temporary band-aid to reduce car theft in some ghetto but only as long as people find ways to bypass it.
The criminals caught on the show are not the deviants like most of you think.
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.
How is stealing something not a crime? All the police are doing is making it easy to do. That's why I agree with bait car stings. What I'm trying to say is, just because it's easy doesn't mean it's not a crime.
People do leave keys in their car, people do leave their cars running. Sure, it's not smart but it does happen. My uncle worked at a gas station for the majority of his adult life and he told me countless stories of people coming into the store and going out to find their car missing because they left the keys in the ignition.
Stuff like this does happen.
I never said it's not a crime. I never said anything even close to that. You create a completely new statement that's incredibly easy to refute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).
Sorry, I didn't see your edit. I don't understand what in my post relates to the straw man theory?
Man, I'm getting a headache from reading all these links, haha. I'll check back tomorrow on what you say, this is all pretty interesting.
Not to get completely offtopic but by saying that what I said is the same as saying that people who steal in this situation are not criminals you are changing my argument in something incredibly easy to refute (that stealing cars in this situation is okay, which it's obviously not).
Oh, are you saying that the uncle part doesn't relate to cops setting people up? If so all I'm trying to say is cops aren't setting up unrealistic scenarios, this stuff does happen.
Nah that's not what I meant. Although I do think the uncle part is somewhat irrelevant because obviously he's gonna have a lot more stories about stolen cars than cars that were not stolen (Availability heuristic, in case you're actually interested in these argument things, I'm just always assuming people are because I am). :p It's still unrealistic to leave a car out in the middle of a street with keys in it for a relatively long time. At a gas station at least the owner is always very near.
What they should really do is just scare the daylights out of them by arresting them, tossing them in jail for a night(but telling them it is years) and then let them go the next day. That ought to teach them a good enough lesson.
On November 23 2009 13:19 Fontong wrote: What they should really do is just scare the daylights out of them by arresting them, tossing them in jail for a night(but telling them it is years) and then let them go the next day. That ought to teach them a good enough lesson.
i actually had a dream about being sentenced to jail for life time, it was scary.
i think what frits is saying committing a crime like this is not the same as committing crime you are not baited into. Then it becomes if this is enough "baiting" to be labeled as entrapment. People have said it's far from it and I would agree. This is a crime either way but the criminals, their motive, how law enforcement should handle these and try to control and reduce these types of crimes is definitely not by planting more bait cars. I actually think "the wire" is a pretty good show to explain all this. Basically, the problems with neighborhoods this show targets or the areas with high crime in general, have much deeper problems which make their inhabitants more likely to commit crimes than the average citizen. But by making this a reality show and avoiding discussing the context it only creates more prejudice and misunderstanding.
On November 23 2009 13:09 zulu_nation8 wrote: I think its reasonable to assume areas with high car theft are areas with high crime rates in every category. People are more likely to steal not because they are missing some moral backbone that nice white folks happen to magically possess but because those black people getting caught on the show are poor, have no education and can not find jobs. Enticing people in poverty to steal is exploitation. Please don't compare this to yourself and say, "I would never do this" so it's ok for those people to go to jail because you are not those people. This is what happens when each instance of crime is taken out of context to be examined like universal law. This might be a temporary band-aid to reduce car theft in some ghetto but only as long as people find ways to bypass it.
The criminals caught on the show are not the deviants like most of you think.
Seriously, how many of you would pick up a 100 dollar bill on the ground if you felt that no one will catch you?
On November 23 2009 13:09 zulu_nation8 wrote: I think its reasonable to assume areas with high car theft are areas with high crime rates in every category. People are more likely to steal not because they are missing some moral backbone that nice white folks happen to magically possess but because those black people getting caught on the show are poor, have no education and can not find jobs. Enticing people in poverty to steal is exploitation. Please don't compare this to yourself and say, "I would never do this" so it's ok for those people to go to jail because you are not those people. This is what happens when each instance of crime is taken out of context to be examined like universal law. This might be a temporary band-aid to reduce car theft in some ghetto but only as long as people find ways to bypass it.
The criminals caught on the show are not the deviants like most of you think.
Seriously, how many of you would pick up a 100 dollar bill on the ground if you felt that no one will catch you?
Totally irrelevant.
What if you were wingsandrockx and I left an unlocked M3 in front of you. Would that be considered entrapment?
And imagine I modified the maps on LastShadow's starcraft folder. He makes a game but he doesn't notice the minerals and unit build times are modified until the game started. If he continues playing, is that considered cheating?
I'm talking about the propensity of people to do these actions, not so much if its wrong or not, or the definition of it..and I was agreeing with him, something you were too.
So I'm taking, you thought I was arguing against him? this was directed at itw :S
On November 23 2009 13:09 zulu_nation8 wrote: I think its reasonable to assume areas with high car theft are areas with high crime rates in every category. People are more likely to steal not because they are missing some moral backbone that nice white folks happen to magically possess but because those black people getting caught on the show are poor, have no education and can not find jobs. Enticing people in poverty to steal is exploitation. Please don't compare this to yourself and say, "I would never do this" so it's ok for those people to go to jail because you are not those people. This is what happens when each instance of crime is taken out of context to be examined like universal law. This might be a temporary band-aid to reduce car theft in some ghetto but only as long as people find ways to bypass it.
The criminals caught on the show are not the deviants like most of you think.
Seriously, how many of you would pick up a 100 dollar bill on the ground if you felt that no one will catch you?
Totally irrelevant.
What if you were wingsandrockx and I left an unlocked M3 in front of you. Would that be considered entrapment?
If I were wingsandrockx I would 1) Have my own M3, plus my back-up M3 2) Have the cash in my wallet to BUY another M3 3) Probably drive the abandoned M3 into the ocean to make sure no poor people accidentally wandered by and got it. Poor people don't deserve M3's, and they lower its brand value for all true M3 owners.
On November 23 2009 13:31 druj wrote: I'm talking about the propensity of people to do these actions, not so much if its wrong or not, or the definition of it..and I was agreeing with him, something you were too.
So I'm taking, you thought I was arguing against him?
I was saying your example was pretty unrelated to the topic in any meaningful way.
I honestly don't know what to think here. On the one hand, the people taking these cars aren't naive rubes duped into being bad by the police, they're willing criminals. If you've ever had your car stolen, you'll know how infuriating it is and how disruptive it can be to your everyday life.
On the other, sometimes things like this serve to perpetuate stereotypes and hyper-criminalize misdemeanor acts. It often presumes to make out intent, and I think they're a difference between taking a car for a joyride and taking it to a chop-shop, a distinction this show rarely, if ever, seems to make.
The bait car program is not ridiculous, it's actually pretty awesome since it lowered car thefts in my city by 47% (as official figures go.)
As far as I'm concerned, whatever puts the thieves in jail is fair play for me. Like some people say, a law-abiding citizen, or at least anyone who is afraid to go to jail and get raped, will not touch a car that has unlocked doors, let alone a car that is idling. I've seen many unlocked car doors, and garages that have been left open, and i just go past it. It's not hard to avoid crime.
Besides, in my city, they have warning signs in parking lots that clearly state they are holding a bait car program in the lot. If you're a dumb thief and still get caught, that's your fault.
There's a lot of grey here. But also an important distinction to make.
What makes this entrapment is not the use of a car as a lure, but the manner in which the car is set up. A bait car designed for catching real car thieves (of which there are not many) is a car left in an area that has been prone to car theft. The aim to to bring the known car thieves in the area out into the open. The secondary aim of such a program is to create suspicion among thieves, who after a highly publicized program, may be unwilling to steal a car for fear that it is bait.
What makes this bait car a case of really not-so-good entrapment and therefore entertaining for TV, is that this car is made steal-able to any random member of the general public. The keys in the ignition, the engine running, this is akin to giving a person on the street the ski mask, the crowbar, the plans of the museum, the location of the priceless ruby, ect. It's giving ordinary people all the tools they need to commit a robbery they were not previously considering.
This is not good, imo.
On November 23 2009 14:00 jello24 wrote: The bait car program is not ridiculous, it's actually pretty awesome since it lowered car thefts in my city by 47% (as official figures go.)
As far as I'm concerned, whatever puts the thieves in jail is fair play for me. Like some people say, a law-abiding citizen, or at least anyone who is afraid to go to jail and get raped, will not touch a car that has unlocked doors, let alone a car that is idling. I've seen many unlocked car doors, and garages that have been left open, and i just go past it. It's not hard to avoid crime.
Besides, in my city, they have warning signs in parking lots that clearly state they are holding a bait car program in the lot. If you're a dumb thief and still get caught, that's your fault.
On November 23 2009 14:07 zulu_nation8 wrote: why can't everyone in the ninth ward be more like you
Unfair. jello was speaking about a very successful, very positive bait car program not unlike the one that we have right next door to me in Minneapolis. Awareness that a car might be a bait car is very important.
On November 23 2009 13:01 Frits wrote: Enough with the strawmen, I didn't say it's a manufactured fantasy I said it's unrealistic.
I don't see how I'm misinterpreting your argument, I'm merely using stronger language.
On November 23 2009 13:01 Frits wrote: They leave these cars out there until someone stumbles upon them, not leave them for 5 minutes in places that are likely to have cars with keys still in them (at gas stations etc, where the likeliness of criminals waiting to steal something is much larger). If you leave a car out in the open for a large amount of time the likeliness of it getting stolen increases until it reaches eventually 100%.
Yeah, and if I were to live for 4000 years, the chances of my having sex with a midget increase until it's just about a certainty! Again, I don't see how this is relevant. Are you implying that nothing separates me from those women other than opportunity? Stealing a car is not a decision to be taken lightly, and the vast majority of people DO NOT do it the second the opportunity presents itself. This is why I was using the example of smaller cities which have a lesser prevalence of gangs, drug addictions, crime, and social problems in general. People can and do leave their car running in locales where there are not a large number of opportunistic criminals.
On November 23 2009 13:01 Frits wrote: This is not proving anything, the police are just creating statistics to look good. They're preventing car theft because they create so many car thefts and instantly solve them that the amount of real car thefts are left ignored.
What? They can't just "ignore" actual car theft. If it's reported it's included in the statistics...
On November 23 2009 13:01 Frits wrote: The crime rates of car theft probably rose with 70% when they started doing these busts before they dropped 70%.
"These statistics are flawed and misleading. Listen to my personal opinion and judgments based off absolutely nothing but a hunch instead."
On November 23 2009 13:01 Frits wrote: Also you said it's common in small towns. I said it's irrelevant. And suddenly it's relevant because it happens rarely in cities? That doesn't make sense.
As stated above, it is relevant as it sets a bar for a standard of human behavior that we should be expected to abide by. The statistics for a larger city are to refute your claim that the scenario is unrealistic.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
I agree with IntoTheWow-- this doesn't really catch car thiefs per sé. Rather, it tries to entice people (who may or may not normally steal things) into stealing. It's like asking for a bad thing to happen. A person may not normally steal a car, but gift-wrap it with keys in a started engine, and you have a breakdown of morals waiting to happen.
On November 23 2009 13:09 zulu_nation8 wrote: I think its reasonable to assume areas with high car theft are areas with high crime rates in every category. People are more likely to steal not because they are missing some moral backbone that nice white folks happen to magically possess but because those black people getting caught on the show are poor, have no education and can not find jobs. Enticing people in poverty to steal is exploitation. Please don't compare this to yourself and say, "I would never do this" so it's ok for those people to go to jail because you are not those people. This is what happens when each instance of crime is taken out of context to be examined like universal law. This might be a temporary band-aid to reduce car theft in some ghetto but only as long as people find ways to bypass it.
The criminals caught on the show are not the deviants like most of you think.
Seriously, how many of you would pick up a 100 dollar bill on the ground if you felt that no one will catch you?
Totally irrelevant.
What if you were wingsandrockx and I left an unlocked M3 in front of you. Would that be considered entrapment?
no if anyone enters your car and steals it they are thieves, a law abiding citizen would not walk away with an M3.
On November 23 2009 13:29 IntoTheWow wrote: And imagine I modified the maps on LastShadow's starcraft folder. He makes a game but he doesn't notice the minerals and unit build times are modified until the game started. If he continues playing, is that considered cheating?
This is entrapment. And for the record if you were last shadow and noticed you would be cheating.
making this into a TV show is ridiculous, and they obviously target areas where this is more likely to happen, BUT the people that go through with it are criminals, they commited a crime of their own accord.
I for example would never have even bothered to open the car and see if it had keys or not, much less driven it away, on the simple premise that IT'S NOT MY PROPERTY.
if you have the opportunity to benefit yourself at the cost of another and you take it, knowing it is against the law you are a criminal end of story, there is no leeway on this.
I have friends in my area where i lived in portugal that would definitely enter an unlocked parked car, and if they noticed it had keys some would probably drive it away. these are people i know, trust and like, but if they get caught they go to jail ,and i won't think it would be entrapment, it is their decision, irrelevant of how badly their lives suck and unprivileged they are, to steal and as such they will ( if they get caught) pay the consequences.
edit: also this argument that cops shouldn't get people to commit crimes holds no water. They are taking criminals who would in the same circumstances commit the crime with a civilian's car. you know what the difference would be? there is a risk that a car chase commences that may very well lead into an accident, that may in turn lead to the death of INNOCENT civilians.
and let's not even begin to talk about monetary cost benefits.
On November 23 2009 14:40 Always wrote: I agree with IntoTheWow-- this doesn't really catch car thiefs per sé. Rather, it tries to entice people (who may or may not normally steal things) into stealing. It's like asking for a bad thing to happen. A person may not normally steal a car, but gift-wrap it with keys in a started engine, and you have a breakdown of morals waiting to happen.
This thread seems to boil down to two primary disagreements. One is on the feasibility of this method as a realistic scenario, and the other is on the dynamics of human nature. I'm actually a little surprised at how many of you believe that this "breakdown of morals" will occur near-universally when the illusion of no repercussions is presented. I agree that in certain extreme circumstances, such as stealing a loaf of bread for one's starving family, we would all become opportunistic criminals. But in this sort of scenario, I don't believe that most well-adjusted individuals would steal something which would have such an enormous impact on another's life just to improve their own circumstance in a non-essential way. Even if one "who may not normally steal things" is enticed into this scheme, they've still proven their willingness to do so should an opportunity arise and will be prevented/discouraged from doing so in the future with their jail sentence. How far does someone have to go out of their way to be considered a criminal? There are some instances where premeditated crime is dealt with more severely than opportunistic or impulsive crimes, but the latter should not be allowed to slide into a grey area of what is considered acceptable behavior. No criminals commit their crimes expecting to be caught.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
In terms of long-term deterrence, it does seem to be effective in getting people to commit less crimes. This is why the opposing argument seems self-contradictory to me. If you are so untrusting as to believe that an enormous number of people would steal a car if presented with the illusion of unlikely repercussion, then wouldn't it be wise to institute policy that discourages this notion? When bait car programs are publicized, the perceived omniscience of the police force increases greatly. All of us untrustworthy scoundrels will think twice before jacking what appears to be an easy target.
For me to agree with this method a couple other things would have to be used in conjunction with it. I am assuming that this method cuts down on police costs in the sense that police can patrol less for car thieves. With the addition of these set ups being on TV, there would hopefully be enough money to start some start of rehabilitation program for the area that said set ups are occurring. Assuming that a majority of those caught in these situations are just poor desperate people and not career criminals, i believe that some sort of program that involved simple courses on job training, trade school education, help with support for children, if any, and other social programs. But, I am not so jaded to think that this will ever really happen. So in conclusion, this is, in my opinion, just another way of preying on the poor.
I don't think of it as full entrapment but borderline. Ideally, law-abiding citizens will leave the car alone.
But the scenarios they are setting up for the show is: - Very expensive car in a poor neighborhood. - Keys left visible (on hood) or car engine left running. - Make it obvious the car has been abandoned there (having officer fake arrest a person in plainclothes).
We as people are not as ideal as we'd like to believe. On the surface, people will speak as if they are righteous but it is their actions that define who they are. In fact, when given the opportunity, I believe most of us will turn bad if we believed could get away with it. It is only the threat of punishment that is keeping people in line. Some politicians preach family values while running around with escorts, priests who molest kids, gay republicans who are publicly against gay rights, the list goes on.
What the show is doing is to produce the most juicy opportunity available to poor people to get them to commit a crime. Imagine what a Cadillac Escallade can do for somebody who has very little money.
--------------
That aside, the show is somewhat entertaining. There are people who wrap plastic bags over their hands (as to not leave fingerprints) and then coming up with cheesy excuses to the cops.
I'd actually want to see a reality show where they put a hidden camera on a gang member and record their daily lives, minus any killing or really bad parts.
On November 23 2009 14:40 Always wrote: I agree with IntoTheWow-- this doesn't really catch car thiefs per sé. Rather, it tries to entice people (who may or may not normally steal things) into stealing. It's like asking for a bad thing to happen. A person may not normally steal a car, but gift-wrap it with keys in a started engine, and you have a breakdown of morals waiting to happen.
This thread seems to boil down to two primary disagreements. One is on the feasibility of this method as a realistic scenario, and the other is on the dynamics of human nature. I'm actually a little surprised at how many of you believe that this "breakdown of morals" will occur near-universally when the illusion of no repercussions is presented. I agree that in certain extreme circumstances, such as stealing a loaf of bread for one's starving family, we would all become opportunistic criminals. But in this sort of scenario, I don't believe that most well-adjusted individuals would steal something which would have such an enormous impact on another's life just to improve their own circumstance in a non-essential way. Even if one "who may not normally steal things" is enticed into this scheme, they've still proven their willingness to do so should an opportunity arise and will be prevented/discouraged from doing so in the future with their jail sentence. How far does someone have to go out of their way to be considered a criminal? There are some instances where premeditated crime is dealt with more severely than opportunistic or impulsive crimes, but the latter should not be allowed to slide into a grey area of what is considered acceptable behavior. No criminals commit their crimes expecting to be caught.
On November 23 2009 10:22 IntoTheWow wrote: The law should try to get people NOT to commit crimes, not trying to get the worst out of people to nail them.
In terms of long-term deterrence, it does seem to be effective in getting people to commit less crimes. This is why the opposing argument seems self-contradictory to me. If you are so untrusting as to believe that an enormous number of people would steal a car if presented with the illusion of unlikely repercussion, then wouldn't it be wise to institute policy that discourages this notion? When bait car programs are publicized, the perceived omniscience of the police force increases greatly. All of us untrustworthy scoundrels will think twice before jacking what appears to be an easy target.
3clipse says it beautifully here, perhaps someone that was starving and needed food would steal some food in order to feed themselves... but stealing a car? That's no immediate gain, your going to have to sell it and your going to get a big chunk of money for doing so... Anyways plenty of people will not steal even if there are absolutely no external consequences.
For instance I lost my wallet with a $120 in it at school and someone girl found it and returned it to me... she didn't have to do that, in fact she could have just taken the money and left my wallet there and nothing at all would have happened to her. But she gave it back.
Anyways, you know you are committing a crime in the OP scenario. If I walked by a car with the keys in it (and I can see the keys/the car is on) I don't steal the car because "I might get caught", I don't steal it because I have a strong sense of empathy and I know that someone else had to work hard to get that car and for me to take it away sucks for them. However either way that one thinks about it, its still a crime no matter how it happens. You can't even say its entrapment because a normal citizen could leave there car like this and if the police chance catch the thief after he steals it, it's a car theft. Same scenario just it isn't being set up.
People don't like this because they usually have some sort of vendetta against the cops, ie they got pulled over or maybe they had a friend get busted for possession charges.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.x-entertainment.com/articles/0262/ack1.jpg)
