Chicago police confronted for planting bait car full of Nikes in the Ghetto

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: intrepid

You must be very young.

You must be quite deluded.

Police have been arresting people based on crimes of opportunity for many years, all over the country. This has been upheld in court.

Not with decent lawyers. Those get thrown out.

Honest people do not commit crimes of opportunity. If you are saying that somehow people would suddenly commit a crime just because something is in front of them, then you do not understand what morality and ethics are.

Do you actually believe what you're writing here? If people can get something for nothing you'll see "honest" people take that opportunity. BTW all my almost 6 decades of life I've hear that America is the "land of opportunity." Now I can see why.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BlueAjah

Are you actually reading what you're writing??

Give them an opportunity to commit a crime? How is that not entrapment?

...and, as I asked above, why not investigate, maybe even solve, actual crimes that have taken place, or is that too hard for 'em?

Did an undercover cop go up to these citizens and encourage them to go steal? That would be more inline with entrapment. Just parking and leaving the bait vehicle is not considered entrapment. The cops did not actively encourage any of the individual's to commit theft. Those individual's each knowingly chose to break the law.

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast

originally posted by: intrepid

originally posted by: Themaskedbeast
When the do it in low-income high crime level neighborhoods they get real results that make sense of the money spent.

So it's an action against poverty? That's disgusting. Putting a meal in front of hungry people.

not an action against poverty noone made them take the shoes. But in a gated community people are less likely to take something on someone else's front seat when they could go buy it these people steal to steal for the thrill or is it more for the swag.

Exactly. An action against poverty. Further, a "targeted" action against poverty.

a reply to: seagull

By your logic, stores should not have security to prevent shoplifting. If stores are going to just leave things laying around, then poor people should be able to just take what they want. After all, the store should not have entrapped people by leaving so many tempting things around, especially in those low income neighborhoods.

A young girl should not have gone to a party with shorts on. After all, how could a young man be expected to not just take what he wants? It was her fault for entrapping him.

Do you understand how absurd it is to make excuses for someone who will commit a crime just because they can not resist something?

Perhaps stores in the neighborhood in the OP have been having issues with theft. And residents have had things stolen from their cars and porches. There is nothing wrong with police proactively making an effort to warn criminals that they are protecting the area and will not tolerate crime.

Of course shootings and violence are deserving of the most attention, but that does not mean that residents and business owners should live in fear of loss of property either.

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BlueAjah

Are you actually reading what you're writing??

Give them an opportunity to commit a crime? How is that not entrapment?

...and, as I asked above, why not investigate, maybe even solve, actual crimes that have taken place, or is that too hard for 'em?

Did an undercover cop go up to these citizens and encourage them to go steal? That would be more inline with entrapment. Just parking and leaving the bait vehicle is not considered entrapment. The cops did not actively encourage any of the individual's to commit theft. Those individual's each knowingly chose to break the law.

So "just parking and leaving" something isn't "actively encouraging"? What's the purpose of the action then? To see how the tires of their vehicle stand up to the local tarmac?

a reply to: intrepid

If someone, anyone, leaves their property someplace, it does not give you or anyone else the right to pick it up and keep it.
That is wrong. That is stealing. It is a crime.

I raised my children to know that this is wrong. Not being able to afford something does not give you a right to take things that do not belong to you.
...
Correct, just leaving something is not actively encouraging.
Actively encouraging would be standing on the corner saying if you don't do it, I will beat you up, etc.

a reply to: BlueAjah



I KNOW the 'legal definition' of Entrapment is so Your suggestion that I read the legal definition is wasted on Me. I typed that it was "lazy police work"

Let's paint the front of the house all the while the water heater is flooding the snip out of the basement and seeping into the floor boards.

Read the legal definition of a "fact"

From another point of view, the police put the truck there because they believe the neighborhood is full of thieves. Many here would consider that racist because the neighborhood is predominantly black.

Yet the black guy filming is hollering "watch out for the bait truck!", implying that he also thinks the neighborhood is full of thieves.

Just something to ponder.

a reply to: JimNasium

Isn't it part of a police officers job to protect people from having their property stolen?
Or should police just ignore that?

Since you are worried about wasting time, which is more efficient?
Answering multiple calls every day about theft in a neighborhood and investigating each case?
Or rounding them all up in one swoop?

a reply to: intrepid

Putting a meal in front of hungry people.

Even if I accepted the equivalence (I do not), hungry people cannot pass a streetside cafe or patio and simply start eating other people's food. It doesn't belong to them.

These poor people starving for .. Sneakers... "The moral breakdown is completely understandable in light of such irresistible evolutionary impulses for more fashionable footwear."

Also, good lawyers won't have these cases tossed. Can you provide an example?

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: Xtrozero

"They are after people who purposely steal bikes"? As opposed to after people who accidentally steal Nikes?

The program linked saw a 33% reduction in bike theft, and most the people "purposely stealing" were unsurprisingly otherwise afoul of the law. Perhaps prominent, well-advertised programs have a deterrent effect worth noting?

They are creating temptation, so this is a morality test in some way I guess, and unfortunately humans fail that test all the time, but in this case it is jail too. We would have most of the population in jail if we set everyone up in some form of temptation of one kind of another...

I think parts can be good, like the bike theft program, but that is a case where, like Portland where I live, they have a huge bike theft problem and the typical person is not going to steal a bike or a car as example, but you open up a very big temptation scenario by having open and easy access to a bunch of Nike shoes.

Do we want to catch thieves or create them?

a reply to: BlueAjah

Thanks for pointing this out

Entrapment only occurs if police force, threaten, or otherwise coerce someone to do something that they would not otherwise have done.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Anyone who can not resist stealing is a criminal, whether they planned it or not.

Exactly

Some folks here are acting as if the defendant stole a small amount of food to feed their children or stole a winter coat in the middle of Jan... Even if that were true, it doesn't make it any less illegal or objectively "wrong" (although it'd be much easier to understand vs. theft of non-essentials like designer shoes)

a reply to: Xtrozero

Why is the bike program different? Why/how do unattended Nikes create thieves in a way that unattended bikes do not?

originally posted by: CynConcepts

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: BlueAjah

Are you actually reading what you're writing??

Give them an opportunity to commit a crime? How is that not entrapment?

...and, as I asked above, why not investigate, maybe even solve, actual crimes that have taken place, or is that too hard for 'em?

Did an undercover cop go up to these citizens and encourage them to go steal? That would be more inline with entrapment. Just parking and leaving the bait vehicle is not considered entrapment. The cops did not actively encourage any of the individual's to commit theft. Those individual's each knowingly chose to break the law.

Just out of curiosity, can you tell me how many people were arrested for stealing from this truck?

originally posted by: RadioRobert

Why is the bike program different? Why/how do unattended Nikes create thieves in a way that unattended bikes do not?

As I said you can setup any human in some morality test that they can fail...do you disagree? You want to set up those who are on going thieves, you do not want to create scenarios that puts a person who is not the on going thief into a decision situation that creates a thief out of thin air.

In that area are Nike thief a big problem like our bike situation? Are people stealing Nikes left and right? I would say no they are not and so this is what I suggest is just throwing some nice enticement bait out there to see what they can catch compared to a focused issue.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: JimNasium

Isn't it part of a police officers job to protect people from having their property stolen?
Or should police just ignore that?

Since you are worried about wasting time, which is more efficient?
Answering multiple calls every day about theft in a neighborhood and investigating each case?
Or rounding them all up in one swoop?

And you believe the police are being called there for theft everyday, come on there’s not even enough stuff to steal from a poor neighborhood for that to be reasonably possible.

I think they were most likely not repeat or seasoned criminals seeing as they’re not familiar with a bait truck, I think they only did it because it was there. I believe if the tried this in every city with differing items they’d probably nab some of your most upstanding people fireman, postal workers etc...

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: intrepid

Putting a meal in front of hungry people.

Even if I accepted the equivalence (I do not), hungry people cannot pass a streetside cafe or patio and simply start eating other people's food. It doesn't belong to them.

These poor people starving for .. Sneakers... "The moral breakdown is completely understandable in light of such irresistible evolutionary impulses for more fashionable footwear."

Also, good lawyers won't have these cases tossed. Can you provide an example?

But that’s not the same, no one was in possession of the stuff that got stolen. Yeah
if they were to take it from another person, And yes theft is theft

But I can guarantee if you leave FRESH FOOD in the side of the road, on the streets, or on a sidewalk. I could guarantee you that if no one is in possession of it with hungry or starving people nearby they would definitely 100% start to eat it. 100%

a reply to: gamer2343

I believe if the tried this in every city with differing items they’d probably nab some of your most upstanding people fireman, postal workers etc...

They probably would, and they'd be just as wrong/criminally responsible

That said, I don't think anyone here is arguing that petit larceny or theft from a vehicle is the crime of the century. But it is a nuisance to residents and I'm sure adds up (insurance claims, premiums, etc). Nothing is ever free, not even stolen materials... someone has to pay for them eventually

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: seagull

By your logic, stores should not have security to prevent shoplifting. If stores are going to just leave things laying around, then poor people should be able to just take what they want. After all, the store should not have entrapped people by leaving so many tempting things around, especially in those low income neighborhoods.

A young girl should not have gone to a party with shorts on. After all, how could a young man be expected to not just take what he wants? It was her fault for entrapping him.

Do you understand how absurd it is to make excuses for someone who will commit a crime just because they can not resist something?

Perhaps stores in the neighborhood in the OP have been having issues with theft. And residents have had things stolen from their cars and porches. There is nothing wrong with police proactively making an effort to warn criminals that they are protecting the area and will not tolerate crime.

Of course shootings and violence are deserving of the most attention, but that does not mean that residents and business owners should live in fear of loss of property either.

That’s different a store is private property that belongs to someone else, not in the streets or on the side of the road