Discussion in 'GatorNana's Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by gatorpika, Oct 21, 2020.
Yes, I thinking calling in a report that would involve the SWAT team being deployed is a level of severity much greater than saying you see a 'suspicious' black guy on the street. FWIW, it would be much easier to prove intent to cause harm on the first one.
The idea isn't to reduce the number of calls to police simply based on gut suspicion? What is it then?
So you see someone roaming around the backyard of your neighbor that you don't recognize. Your neighbor is at work and you don't have a contact number. Do you report it? Maybe they are trying to break in or maybe they were hired to do maintenance on the property. SF suggests you go out and get to know them, but you would be facing a potential criminal and could put yourself at risk. If the vast majority of calls that come in are of genuine concern that there might be a crime being committed, does that outweigh the one off situations where some nut job misuses the system? If you get it wrong and the other person sues you you still have to go to court to defend yourself even if you had no "specific intent". All this so some politician can grandstand and claim to be doing something for race relations.
The idea isn't about reducing police calls, it's about notoriety for the person proposing the ordinance.
If the law is bad and harmful, why would it help them? If its good and/or its something people in the community want, isn't that what politics is about? And really there are probably better ways to make a name for yourself than proposing ordinances. I'd be hard pressed to name more than a handful of people in local government, particularly based on proposed legislation.
Maybe you'd want to observe them committing a crime before you report it if you aren't comfortable confronting them or talking to them. Just a thought.
There it is, Karen. If you don't know you neighbor well enough to have their personal cell, you don't know your neighbor well enough to "recognize" who should and shouldn't be in the back yard. If the "stranger" has a crowbar and is smashing windows, then it's a little more obvious. Maybe don't sit with the phone dialed 9-1-...and waiting for someone to appear where you've decided they shouldn't be.
If Trump and the congressional GOP proposed a law to deport all illegals within 4 years, do you think that's based on pragmatic considerations or pandering to the base? Not all laws are good and a good many of the proposed ones are grandstanding. If you have not seen this I guess you have not been paying attention. Yes the community will support it because they do the same low level thinking as many on this board and won't see past "it's good for race relations". The specifics or likely impact don't matter.
There’s some heavy SFDS and CalDS in this forum these days.
I don't understand. In this scenario, wouldn't you already fear the consequences of your report being labelled "false," with or without the ordinance?
The vast majority of calls that come in for "suspicious" behavior, not witnessing the actual crime. Reporting those types of situations is also encouraged by the police. In most cases they come out to investigate and if the person belongs there they will be on their way. In some cases it turns into a bad situation, but that's more on the police than the person reporting it.
Reporting Suspicious Behavior - Police | seattle.gov
No, because the DA would have to decide to prosecute before I went to court and would have to have some significant evidence that I misused emergency services. If I legitimately believed in what I saw and there was no evidence to prove otherwise, there is little chance of that. If someone decides they have been wronged they might want to sue and then I have to show up in court. The case might be dismissed, but I am not going there without a lawyer. There is also risk any time you go to court, so I would have to be pretty motivated to be a good citizen to face that potential outcome. A lot of people that report crimes do so anonymously because they don't want to get involved other than feeling they should call it in.
Someone needs to turn "MIKE! MIKE! MIKE! MIKE!" into a car alarm.
Sure, but you can already be sued. You don't need an ordinance to file a law suit. If someone felt so wronged by your report they could just claim harassment, defamation, stalking, or probably dozens of other causes of action.
But even accepting that people would be scared of the ordinance, wouldn't it also follow that people intending to file false reports would also be scared? Just like a genuine reporter, a false reporter would know that it's hard for authorities to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt. So, to the same extent another civil cause of action would discourage genuine reporters, it would also discourage false reporters.
Basically, you can't have it both ways. If the ordinance works, it's likely to discourage both real and fake reports. At that point, it just becomes a value judgment -- what's more important getting fewer false reports or more genuine reports.
Its what the people who voted for them want, that's what I'd expect if you hand Republicans a majority. Yes, we can agree that not all laws are good, but democracy means that the people you vote for might pass bad or harmful laws. That's how self-government works. There are no wise sages to tell us what the good or bad laws are, that's for us and experience to decide. If a law sucks it can be repealed. Self-government is a lot of trial and error.
That's basically the problem isn't? This is how you increase police interactions with non-criminals, and the potential for state violence to be employed haphazardly. The police shouldn't encourage it. Ironically, the more police are associated with wanton violence against minorities in the public consciousness, that will reduce people's propensity to make legitimate calls too. Or at least people with the sort of values you'd stereotypically associate with San Francisco.
I do remember that but don't think this incident warrants coming up with a new, redundant law. Also, the new law is encouraging people to talk to someone rather than calling 911. Most of social media, and also the guy filming her, were offended that she questioned him. Her biggest fault was lying about knowing the property owner, which was actually him. There's also no reason to think she was intentionally targeting him because of his race.
But is it really needed? The fake reports are sensationalized, which drives the political angle, but the majority of the reports are from people that have a genuine concern. So you stop a half dozen fake reports and several hundred noticed actual crimes go unreported. If numbers wise it was a huge problem, but going back to an earlier post it seems more like a politician capitalizing on viral videos.
And at its extreme we could defund the police and have no police interactions with criminals or non-criminals so no problem with "state violence". Good governance is somewhere in the middle where you weight the necessity and cost of a law.