brits announce "to hell with our WWII victory, totalitarianism is jolly good for us!"

[Deviant Ollam]

Your average crook is a mouth breather.

i think when you and i were talking about locks and physical security of a home you pointed out that far too often people put an expensive lock on a door that's not sturdy (or a door with windows in it) and they don't realize that practically no home-intrusion criminal is going to pick a lock in order to commit a burglary. in almost all areas except for rural zones, aren't a good number of criminals substance abusers, often with limited mental fortitude for that reason? bricks and crowbars are more of a threat to homeowners than lockpicks and cunning, i often tell people.

i'm always eager to hear your professional LE take on things... how would you classify or generalize the most common "harmful criminal elements" that an ordinary american citizen will come in direct contact with in their lifetime? is home burglary more common than street crime? are pickpockets and street con artists as big a problem now as they were, say, a decade ago? (it seems that almost no one i know nowadays has told me of having their wallet swiped or anything... when i was younger it was a more common tale. maybe there's less of it, maybe people are more alert these days.)

all in all, i realize that the statistics are incredibly widely-varying across differing regions of the country, but i actually have little good understanding of the overall trends. what types of crimes would you say are on the decline (in your experience or according to national figures of which you're aware)? which ones are increasing? any that you feel would be the hardest to eradicate and which we'll face for a loooong time?

(i love discussions like this... i don't know why. i just think there's something great about letting wise people speak at length about topics where most of my experience is limited to some wannabe know-it-all bloviating about society's ills at a restaraunt table or train seat next to mine)

[Thorn]

i think when you and i were talking about locks and physical security of a home you pointed out that far too often people put an expensive lock on a door that's not sturdy (or a door with windows in it) and they don't realize that practically no home-intrusion criminal is going to pick a lock in order to commit a burglary.

That's true, I've seen some pretty impressive single key deadbolts on doors with small panes.

There is a deterant factor to some degree. Most of the burglars I used to deal with would much rather open an unlocked door than break a lock or a window. Probably a good 50% of all burglaries I investigated over the years were through unlocked doors.

in almost all areas except for rural zones, aren't a good number of criminals substance abusers, often with limited mental fortitude for that reason?

Most criminals are substance abusers, period. It's a common misconception is that drugs aren't a factor in rural areas. They are a factor. Heroin, meth, crack, etc., etc, are very common in rural areas. You just don't see it as openly. Meth labs in particular tend to be rural. The stink is a lot less noticable than in settled areas.

Also, it is very common to have urbanites and suburbanites move to rural areas, and be victimized in short order. They obviously have money (as evidenced by that new 10,000 sq. ft. home, the four SUVs and the two sportscars in the driveway), and think that they are safer by being "out in the country." As a result, they often don't lock their doors. They are also usually removed from neighbors who might otherwise hear the sounds of a door being broken or a breakng glass. Basically, it's like dynamiting fish at the base of the dam; they're easy pickings.

bricks and crowbars are more of a threat to homeowners than lockpicks and cunning, i often tell people.

Yeah, if people really want to get in, they can. The saving grace is that most burglars fear making too much noise, unless they're doing a smash-n-grab of something just inside a window.

I never once arrested a burglar who picked locks. The few that I discussed it with seemed to think it was a fantasy. They would rather get in quickly and start grabbing things, as opposed to spending time actually picking the lock. The other thing is that like most skills, lockpicking takes time to learn well. Learning any new skill involves at least some self-discipline, something that isn't in the psychological makeup of most criminals.

i'm always eager to hear your professional LE take on things... how would you classify or generalize the most common "harmful criminal elements" that an ordinary american citizen will come in direct contact with in their lifetime? is home burglary more common than street crime? are pickpockets and street con artists as big a problem now as they were, say, a decade ago? (it seems that almost no one i know nowadays has told me of having their wallet swiped or anything... when i was younger it was a more common tale. maybe there's less of it, maybe people are more alert these days.)

Burglary is probably the most common. Most households have two incomes nowadays, which translates to no one being home in the daytime. Hence daytime burglaries have risen in the last couple of decades, while nightime burlgaries have declined. As we Baby Boomers age, that may change, since there will be a larger population who is more apt to be home during the day. (Although that's conjecture on my part.)

Street crime tends to be a strictly urban phenomenon for a couple of reasons:
1) The environment is target rich. You just don't get people walking in rural areas, and most victims of street crime are pedestrians. Face it, if you stand on a street corner and yell at cars "Hey! Gimme all your money!", people driving past will just hear "Heeeeeeeeeeee..." and just think you're some nut.
2) The population is relatively unarmed, both by law and temperment. City laws tend to disarm the populace in general. City dwellers also seem to think police will protect them, since they see a police presence, and therefore seem to be more reliant on the police. Whereas rural residents don't see a police presence, and knowing that police response is a fairly long time, tend to be better armed. Criminals don't like victims who will defend themselves and not be victimized, since this reduces said criminal's income. Also, like the rest of us, criminals are disinclined to be shot AT.
3) Most urban residents also tend to have more ready cash, since they have more opportunities and place to spend it.

So where do you as a mugger find unarmed people walking everywhere, all the while with their pockets stuffed with cash? Cities.

all in all, i realize that the statistics are incredibly widely-varying across differing regions of the country, but i actually have little good understanding of the overall trends. what types of crimes would you say are on the decline (in your experience or according to national figures of which you're aware)? which ones are increasing? any that you feel would be the hardest to eradicate and which we'll face for a loooong time?

Truthfully, having been out five years, I don't know what the current trends are. Any technical reading since that time has concentrated on computers and networks, and not police matters. Before I got out however, I saw a huge increase in the real hard drugs like heroin, and all the attendant problems that goes with the use of them.

As far as hardest to eradicate, drugs is it, no question. So much other crime is associated with abuse of substances as the root cause. However, society as a whole doesn't really want to do away with drugs, so we're stuck with the problems, and the police are stuck in the middle: Attempting to control something that is wanted by the public (as evidenced by actions) yet reviled by words (as evidenced by the laws.)

(i love discussions like this... i don't know why. i just think there's something great about letting wise people speak at length about topics where most of my experience is limited to some wannabe know-it-all bloviating about society's ills at a restaraunt table or train seat next to mine)

Wise? <looks around> Who me?

[[Syntax]]

Several years ago at local conventions people were asked if they wanted to be part of the local transportation system that was being built. At the time this was new and inovative technology, and people volunteered eagerly. They gave these people a little box that sticks behind your rear view mirror. Im assuming its a FM transmitter or something similar.. This was around 1998. Im sure alot of cities have similar systems in place now.. some more advanced.

Many of the local signs have a yagi antenna pointed at lanes of traffic, a computer records a ID transmitted from the vehicle along with its position and as it passes under other signs calculates the time from 1 point to another. This information is available online, and displayed on the overhead highway signs.. You can find more info on the whole system on that link, as well as live cameras. And some tech specs on the citywide camera/sign network.

Now.. the question is.. when these devices were given to people.. did they collect data? if so.. all those people are now being tracked to some extent..

Plus we have all our major streets and highways fitted with the camera systems, as well as some newer small boxes that are most likely (chrome boxes) for emergency vehicle traffic.. San Antonio is always behind technology wise.

More and more of our intersections are now being fitted with camera gear though.. I was told at one time that as the number of cameras grow, they will eventually be able to track vehicles by license plate number using the cameras on the traffic signal poles at every intersection which makes perfect sense. Similar to the casino systems that follow faces.

As for in car data recording..

Don't forget the computers already built into most late model cars, they say are there to learn your driving habits. Ask a dealer tech, some models record driving speeds & some retain a few minutes worth of data. If your in an accident, this data could be recovered.

I just googled "record your driving habits" and found this gadget. Progressive insurance offers this thing called "TripSense" which records vehicle usage and when you dump logs can qualify you for a rate discount. However it also says that you have legal obligations to turn over data in the event of an accident.

Good Article on Manufacturer Installed Black Boxes and Laws Governing Them

[Deviant Ollam]

Most criminals are substance abusers, period. It's a common misconception is that drugs aren't a factor in rural areas. They are a factor. ... As far as hardest to eradicate, drugs is it, no question. So much other crime is associated with abuse of substances as the root cause. However, society as a whole doesn't really want to do away with drugs, so we're stuck with the problems, and the police are stuck in the middle: Attempting to control something that is wanted by the public (as evidenced by actions) yet reviled by words (as evidenced by the laws.)

such a frank and straightforward discussion of the hard truth about drugs then leads me to one of my favorite questions to ask of people with law enforcement backgrounds... is socety better served by legalizing or decriminalizing such substances? i think that most people here in this community know that my position on the issue tends to be a pretty hardcore libertarian-type stance, but i'll never dismiss outright beliefs that are contrary to my own in this area. what do you (or what does anyone else reading this, for that matter) think about that in terms of the socio-political effects, potential harms, or possible benefits gained by freeing up resources and reducing criminal profit margins?

Wise? <looks around> Who me?

Wise is a term i would stand by in your case... and methinks that most others here would agree.

[Thorn]

such a frank and straightforward discussion of the hard truth about drugs then leads me to one of my favorite questions to ask of people with law enforcement backgrounds... is socety better served by legalizing or decriminalizing such substances? i think that most people here in this community know that my position on the issue tends to be a pretty hardcore libertarian-type stance, but i'll never dismiss outright beliefs that are contrary to my own in this area. what do you (or what does anyone else reading this, for that matter) think about that in terms of the socio-political effects, potential harms, or possible benefits gained by freeing up resources and reducing criminal profit margins?

It's something of mixed feelings for me. I've seen some otherwise brilliant people turned into the most despicable wretches by things like heroin. In many ways however, my leaning is to that of a Libertarian: If you want to do it, then feel free, as long as you're not bothering me.

The problem becomes that society wants to pick up the pieces. If you take the hard core route, then addicts would be left to die in the street, and society would owe them nothing more than a numbered plot in Potter's Field. Society at large is unwilling to do that, and demands that tax dollars be spent to help addictions. If you are going to do that, then legalizing and extremely heavy taxation on the substances seems to be a way to fund the monies that society feels compelled to throw at the resulting problems.

But that doesn't exactly work either. Two cases in point: Alcohol and cigarettes. Prohibition did nothing to stop "demon rum", and re-legalization and taxation did nothing to slow it down either. Ethanol is still THE preferred substance to abuse by most people. Don't get me wrong, I like a drink or two as much as the next guy, but I saw enough alcohol abuse on the streets to make me think that Prohibition may have had its good points. "Big Tabacco" is currently the boogieman of organized health care. Everyone knows that cigarettes are bad for you, but millions of people still smoke. Heavy taxation hasn't stopped it, nor have anti-smoking campaigns. Plus, there is a real dark side to the taxation issue: If you get a anti-smoking worker from the Health Dept. alone, most will admit that their funding depends on the very people they are trying to stop smoking, and that in the long run, their jobs depend on more smokers. (You may have to get a few drinks into said health-care worker, before they'll admit this... And yes, I know how cynical it is to say that.)

All-in-all, I don't have much in the way of solutions. Legaization in some ways makes a lot of sense, but it won't stop drug use or even diminish the impact on society. Keeping such things illegal won't stop drug abuse.

Wise is a term i would stand by in your case... and methinks that most others here would agree.

Thanks, but I think you've got the wrong guy.

[allentrace]

Thanks, but I think you've got the wrong guy.

Ahh the old modesty ploy making us think you are even more wise.... but we know that you know oi vay I gotta lay off the Long Islands

[Voltage Spike]

All-in-all, I don't have much in the way of solutions.

Don't worry. If the solution were simple, I'm sure we wouldn't be discussing the issue right now.

Legaization in some ways makes a lot of sense, but it won't stop drug use or even diminish the impact on society.

Of course the hope would be that the money would go towards more responsible entities and causes than those typical of a black market.

Then again, the thought of big companies making big profits pushing yet another vice on us is a bit chilling.

[theCount]

Plus, there is a real dark side to the taxation issue: If you get a anti-smoking worker from the Health Dept. alone, most will admit that their funding depends on the very people they are trying to stop smoking, and that in the long run, their jobs depend on more smokers. (You may have to get a few drinks into said health-care worker, before they'll admit this... And yes, I know how cynical it is to say that.)

In the UK, as of 1999, the tobacco taxation runs up to around £10.5 billion, while the National Health Service spends around £1.7 billion on tobacco related disease. Like I said, that was in 1999, and the tax on tobacco has risen quite steadily since then. That's a lot of revenue.

I personally believe that drugs should be legalised, and not just decriminalised, but should also be taxed to the hilt. More money, more revenue, and a general standard of quality/strength.

Less chance of coke cut with baking powder or whatnot, or kids taking a wee bit too many pills, because they are used to the ones that aren't as concentrated. People know what they're getting, hopefully that means that they are less likely to cock it up.

But then again, I could just be expecting too much.

[Deviant Ollam]

I personally believe that drugs should be legalised, and not just decriminalised, but should also be taxed to the hilt.

of course, the elephant in the middle of the room that no one talks about in the "benefits of taxation" argument is the fact that marijuana (either the first or second most widely-consumed illicit drug in the USA) won't generate any revenue since almost the instant that it is legalized there will be pot plants growing in every other backyard on the block. one plant (outdoors, large size, tended properly... all conditions which are possible under legalization) is enough to keep nearly a dozen people (who are casual smokers, no total potheads) fully-stocked almost indefinitely. there won't be (at least i don't think) a huge market for people buying joints at the local 7-11 since it would cost almost nothing to provide one's own supply.

[skroo]

of course, the elephant in the middle of the room that no one talks about in the "benefits of taxation" argument is the fact that marijuana (either the first or second most widely-consumed illicit drug in the USA) won't generate any revenue since almost the instant that it is legalized there will be pot plants growing in every other backyard on the block.

As far as the plants giving an endless supply goes, I agree with you on that - but there're two things that come into play here that'll probably nullify home growers: a) crop growth will be regulated in the same way as tobacco courtesy of taxation, and b) the convenience of being able to just go buy a pack at the gas station outweighs the effort involved in growing your own.

[allentrace]

As far as the plants giving an endless supply goes, I agree with you on that - but there're two things that come into play here that'll probably nullify home growers: a) crop growth will be regulated in the same way as tobacco courtesy of taxation, and b) the convenience of being able to just go buy a pack at the gas station outweighs the effort involved in growing your own.

It will probably come under the jurisdiction of the ATF...I have not researched how they define the Tobacco but if they do so as a narcotic substance inhaled through the mouth then most likely it will be theirs (ATF) to regulate.

[BackatchaBandit]

Just a note (with reference to the OP) on traffic monitoring/vehicle tracking systems in the UK:

My suspicion is that the talk of mandatory black box installation is flam to soften the impact of the roll-out of ANPR (Automatic Number Plate Recognition) systems.

ANPR offers a much more cost effective solution and has already been widely trialed.

To quote the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers):

Section 1 - STRATEGIC INTENT

The strategic intent of the ANPR strategy for the Police Service is to:

“Deny Criminals the Use of the Roads”

through exploiting the full potential of ANPR (and successor Electronic Vehicle Identification technologies), at national, Regional, cross-border and local levels within the Police Service of England and Wales, acting, where appropriate, in partnership with others.

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:4...5_12x04x05.doc

(Worth reading in full if you drive in the UK - to get an idea of what's just *around the next corner*... )

Some stuff from Cambridgeshire Contstabulary: http://www.cambs.police.uk/camops/anpr/why.asp

One probable candidate for 'partnership' already operates an extensive network of ANPR cameras.

-

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear, Citizen. Sorry, I mean Subject.