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

a reply to: gamer2343

But weren't these shoes in someone's vehicle? Which is actually not only private property, but considered an extension of your home in many states

If they just notify the police and papers of what they found then they would be legal.

a reply to: gamer2343

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%

No doubt about it... I'd probably do the same thing (rather than starve to death)

...but it'd still be unlawful *if* that food belonged to someone else/was not abandoned

Look I'm not denying the sympathetic "it is still illegal but understandable" angle when it comes to starving/theft of food/warm clothes/etc. But this wasn't theft of food, and it wasn't warm clothes stolen by someone without a home who has to spend a chilly night on the streets.

I'm not saying theft is "OK" or right in that situation, but again you at least stand a chance of finding a sympathetic jury/judge and having that seen as mitigating circumstances. But in this case, it appears to be stealing for the sake of stealing something (ie: wanting something new, for money, etc) and doesn't look good for those accused of this theft.

Let them pay their fine and do their 30 days of probation (that is probably a worst case scenario for this punishment wise). At least if anything serious ever gets stolen or a major crime is ever committed in that neighborhood police will have people to talk to/possibly some leads

a reply to: gamer2343

If you find a wallet laying in the road, it is not ethical or legal to keep it.
If you find a watch laying in a gym dressing room, it is not ethical or legal to keep it.
If you find a bike laying in a field, is it not ethical or legal to keep it.
If you find anything that does not belong to you, and you claim it as your own, you are doing something wrong and illegal.

If you don't believe the above, then your momma taught you wrong, or you went out into the world and learned wrong after you left your momma.

originally posted by: intrepid

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?

So I should never have any reasonable expectation that if I park and leave me vehicle anywhere, for any length of time, that it will be in the condition I left it in when I return?

I should have no reasonable expectation that anyone else in society, no matter how poor they might be, will respect that my property is mine and not theirs?

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: gamer2343

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%

No doubt about it... I'd probably do the same thing (rather than starve to death)

...but it'd still be unlawful *if* that food belonged to someone else/was not abandoned

Look I'm not denying the sympathetic "it is still illegal but understandable" angle when it comes to starving/theft of food/warm clothes/etc. But this wasn't theft of food, and it wasn't warm clothes stolen by someone without a home who has to spend a chilly night on the streets.

I'm not saying theft is "OK" or right in that situation, but again you at least stand a chance of finding a sympathetic jury/judge and having that seen as mitigating circumstances. But in this case, it appears to be stealing for the sake of stealing something (ie: wanting something new, for money, etc) and doesn't look good for those accused of this theft.

Let them pay their fine and do their 30 days of probation (that is probably a worst case scenario for this punishment wise). At least if anything serious ever gets stolen or a major crime is ever committed in that neighborhood police will have people to talk to/possibly some leads

Who told you that’d it’d be a fine and 30 days probation? theft by receiving which is where you unknowingly buy stolen property from someone even carries a harsher penalty than that.

You don’t even know what they’re being charged with, Could be breaking and entering, could be theft by taking of which none are fines or 30 days probation. These aren’t fines they’re going to jail and if they don’t have bond money they’re going have to sit there

I’m not saying theft isn’t theft and that they shouldn’t be disciplined, I’m just saying you could go anywhere and probably get “criminals” the same way, They should try it in their neighborhoods not a poor black ghetto neighborhood next to where people’s are playing basketball that’s just messed up.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: intrepid

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?

So I should never have any reasonable expectation that if I park and leave me vehicle anywhere, for any length of time, that it will be in the condition I left it in when I return?

I should have no reasonable expectation that anyone else in society, no matter how poor they might be, will respect that my property is mine and not theirs?

So you don’t lock your car doors when you get out, Why don’t you leave them unlocked your windows cracked, Why don’t you leave your door open and the windows from your house once you leave?

Why do you do this if you have any reasonable expectation whatsoever that your property is not someone else’s

a reply to: gamer2343

You'd be surprised how often most LEOs take reports for petty theft. And they really add up $$$ too

Not only does it waste time, but it makes the community lose trust in police because those kind of thefts are fairly difficult to prove since the property owner usually can not ID the person they suspect of committing the theft

Generally... unless they are caught red handed/on camera or are already known to police for theft, they won't be caught until they try to sell the items online or at a pawnshop. This makes stings a valuable way to flush these people out and catch them in the act, allowing LE to be proactive in taking down thieves (including theft rings) who would otherwise take longer to catch (and subsequently able to do more damage) OR graduate to grand larceny/burglary

Otherwise, LE is left being "reactive" and that is never a good thing since the FBI UCR clearance rates say barely over 10% of burglaries are solved while only 21% of all thefts were solved. That is 1/10 or 1/5 at best. Without stings (or novel police work/investigation tools) the vast majority of reported larcenies would go unsolved.

Here are some quick figures on larceny

Larceny-thefts accounted for an estimated 71.4 percent of property crimes in 2014. (Based on Table 1.)

The average value of property taken during larceny-thefts was $929 per offense. When the average value is applied to the estimated number of larceny-thefts, the loss to victims nationally was an estimated $5.3 billion. (Based on Tables 1 and 23.)

Thefts from motor vehicles accounted for 24.0 percent of all larceny-thefts in 2015. (See Table 23.)

originally posted by: gamer2343

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

Ha!

As opposed to boxes in the back of an 18-wheeler that obviously belongs to... noone..?


If they were leaving single boxes of Nikes in a bag out on playgrounds, I could be persuaded this is a waste of time.

Unattended big rig under an overpass filled with product? Finders keepers? Probably not the first occurrence in this neighborhood. Not the same as finding a rogue box of Nikes on the ground no matter how many times you say they just can't help themselves.

a reply to: Hecate666

You feel guilty about stealing because you had some form of role model to let you know that stealing was wrong.

Not everyone has that drilled into them.

Being poverty stricken like you were, is only one ingredient.

This was a racist scenario. They knew in advance, the demographic.
They were baited like fish.


I think given the proper circumstance, people from all demographics would steal.
But the circumstances have to be modified, to provide the right kind of bait.

a reply to: gamer2343

I have been trying to figure out the twisted logic in your post.

Are you saying that if someone leaves their vehicle unlocked, then anything inside is up for grabs and tough luck to the owner? As if somehow the owner has relinquished rights to their property by leaving their vehicle unlocked?

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: Hecate666
....
This was a racist scenario. They knew in advance, the demographic.
They were baited like fish.

Are you saying this was unfair because of the race of the people in the neighborhood?
I think it is racist to claim this, because you are saying that because of race, some people can not resist stealing.

originally posted by: spacedoubt

I think given the proper circumstance, people from all demographics would steal.
But the circumstances have to be modified, to provide the right kind of bait.

Agreed that some people of all demographics would steal.
However, not ALL people from every demographic would steal.
There are poor people who would never steal, just as there are rich people who would never steal.
Immorality has no economic or racial boundaries.
I choose to believe that most people are basically moral, but the comments in this thread are threatening my faith in humanity.

originally posted by: JBurns

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

So what is your point in all this..what do you want to see happen to these criminals?

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: gamer2343

I have been trying to figure out the twisted logic in your post.

Are you saying that if someone leaves their vehicle unlocked, then anything inside is up for grabs and tough luck to the owner? As if somehow the owner has relinquished rights to their property by leaving their vehicle unlocked?

No I’m not saying that but you’re saying that you’re acting as if you don’t have a reasonable expectation that people will steal your stuff if you leave it out in the open, You didn’t answer my questions though.

Do you leave your car windows down and doors unlocked when you get out?

Do you leave your home unlocked?

If not why?

Could it be because

You think that you don’t have a reasonable expectation that if you leave your vehicle unattended, unlocked, for a certain length of time once you come back your #it is going to be gone?

No matter where you leave it hell you could leave it in your driveway

a reply to: gamer2343

Your previous post with these questions was not addressed to me.

The point is, it should not matter if a car is unlocked or a house is unlocked or something is left in a driveway.
There is no way that anyone can reason that this makes it ok for someone else to come along and take something.
If someone steals from an unlocked car, it is still a crime, and the criminal should be charged.

So, no. A person should not expect that their things will be stolen if they leave it unprotected.
Stealing is stealing. It is wrong. It is a crime.

If you are trying to imply that finders keepers applies in the real world, then you are wrong.

originally posted by: spacedoubt

This was a racist scenario. They knew in advance, the demographic.
They were baited like fish.


I think given the proper circumstance, people from all demographics would steal.
But the circumstances have to be modified, to provide the right kind of bait.

This has been my point...are we trying to catch thieves or are we trying to create thieves?

originally posted by: BlueAjah

originally posted by: spacedoubt
a reply to: Hecate666
....
This was a racist scenario. They knew in advance, the demographic.
They were baited like fish.

Are you saying this was unfair because of the race of the people in the neighborhood?
I think it is racist to claim this, because you are saying that because of race, some people can not resist stealing.

originally posted by: spacedoubt

I think given the proper circumstance, people from all demographics would steal.
But the circumstances have to be modified, to provide the right kind of bait.

Agreed that some people of all demographics would steal.
However, not ALL people from every demographic would steal.
There are poor people who would never steal, just as there are rich people who would never steal.
Immorality has no economic or racial boundaries.
I choose to believe that most people are basically moral, but the comments in this thread are threatening my faith in humanity.

I haven’t seen them do this anywhere else, I think it’s at the least pathetic that they placed an open truck full of Nikes in a poor black ghetto neighborhood also next to people were playing basketball,

I’m not saying it’s a race issue because they were majority white officers but if you look closely there were black officers involved too it’s more of a cultural issue those officers are probably not from that area and they come to the other side of town and they came to a poor neighborhood where people are playing basketball, I’m not saying that them stealing wasn’t a bad thing to do but what those officers are doing, that’s not cool

a reply to: Xtrozero

You can't create a thief by leaving something laying around.
Either a person is a thief and will take something, or they are not a thief and will never consider taking something.
Race has nothing to do with it.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: gamer2343

Your previous post with these questions was not addressed to me.

The point is, it should not matter if a car is unlocked or a house is unlocked or something is left in a driveway.
There is no way that anyone can reason that this makes it ok for someone else to come along and take something.
If someone steals from an unlocked car, it is still a crime, and the criminal should be charged.

So, no. A person should not expect that their things will be stolen if they leave it unprotected.
Stealing is stealing. It is wrong. It is a crime.

If you are trying to imply that finders keepers applies in the real world, then you are wrong.

But it was, So again

Do you leave your car doors unlocked

Do you leave your home unlocked

A simple yes or no would be appreciated.

originally posted by: BlueAjah

So, no. A person should not expect that their things will be stolen if they leave it unprotected.
Stealing is stealing. It is wrong. It is a crime.

If you are trying to imply that finders keepers applies in the real world, then you are wrong.

I see only two possible logic paths for you with all this. You either feel the vast majority of society is so good that they will not take any form of bait no matter how enticing it may be, or you do not have a problem with a large percentage of the population in jail or now on an almost unrecoverable path in life, as you say it is a crime....