What do you do about murder?

[ideologyhunter]

Abortion, fur, and statistics courses are murder. Suck up to it.

 

[Rhea]

So… tone alert here. I’m not sure if you’re outraged by my answer or not, but I’m not outraged at yours, just so you know the tone here. I’m in a happy mood and perfectly willing to describe for you a situation that it appears is not one you can picture readily. It’s a description of the _different_ risks and dangers that a person may face in different places.

If there's no reason to be there, then it is literally impossible for their presence there to be suspicious. Besides, there 'not being a reason' for someone to be somewhere, is *not* a reason to be suspicious of them (much less call the cops on them). For all you know, their vehicle broke down and they're just hanging out there waiting for a repair truck to come along or a friend to pick them up. Maybe they're just taking a break from a long drive and decided they need some air. Are either of these valid reasons for you to call the cops on them? No. Do you in fact have *any* valid reason to call the cops on them? No, you don't. Unless there's an indication of actual wrongdoing, present or imminent, there's no reason whatsoever to call the cops; and doing so is some really bad paranoid profiling.

This person was not in a car. If he had been in a car, I would have been able to see it. If he were taking a break from a long drive, he would not do it on a blind corner, he’d move 1/10 mile down the road and park safely. If someone broke down, they would hike to a house to make a call, because there is no cell service


He was on a bicycle. Not a mountain bike or a racing bike or even a commuting bike as sometimes comes through here (my husband commutes on a bike, others come through maybe 5-6 times a year), but this guy was on a ratty old bike that would not be great for commuting. We see folks down in the valley commuting on bikes of all sorts – some are fitness buffs, some look like people who lost their licenses for DUI and are doing whatever it takes to get to work. But none of them looks like this.

Bear in mind that this is a road with a fairly aggressive hill, although this spot is the flattest part of it; a one-mile stretch of only slight incline. And it is not a commuting corridor from anywhere far away. Anyone who is not a neighbor would be more likely to take a better road. It is a dirt road in the country that probably gets a total of 40 cars a day on it and maybe 5 bikes a year not counting my husband or the annual bike-team workout.

In this area, anyone who needs anything goes to a house to ask. People who see people stop their pickups in the middle of the road to chat for 10 minutes. There’s nothing exclusive about the area, it’s not “gated,” it’s _remote_. My other neighbor stopped by once to ask if he could have permission to stop at the side of the road and shoot coyotes that he sees in my field that are after his cattle. This is no problem. There is gunfire constantly in the neighborhood as people target shoot or hunt.

This guy was sitting on a guard-rail looking at the year-round hunting cabin of my next door neighbor (1/2 mile from my place). Bear in mind that it is an area that has several meth lab busts per year. Guns and all.

So yes, based on historical data for the area, this is exactly what our most likely crime looks like. It makes perfect sense to report such a person to both the cops and the neighbors.

We have some neighbors who walk around the block (it's several miles) but there is no reason for anyone not a neighbor to be here. We are not on the way from anywhere or to anywhere. We are miles and miles from anywhere.

Oh I get it, you and your neighbors are the only people who have the right to just exist and hang out within your exclusive zone, right? You can't think of a legitimate reason why that person might be there, so they have to be doing or planning bad shit. This is *exactly* the same kind of reasoning the rich white dude uses to call the cops on the black guy in a hoodie walking down the block. "There's no reason for anyone who doesn't live here to be walking down the street; he clearly doesn't look like he belongs, so he must be up to no good."; it's bullshit reasoning and you ought to know better.

Anyone has a right to be here. We acknowledge that our area is attractive to coyotes, bears and meth labs.

The next most common would be a theft or setting up a meth lab - casing a house. They look for unoccupied hunting cabins or houses where people are on vacation and they break in and set up a meth lab.

Right, of course. 'See someone you don't recognize in the neighborhood -> deduce that they must be there either to throw thrash in your proverbial backyard, looking to rob you, or searching for a place to set up a methlab'...

...go on, tell me again how you're not exactly like the rich white dude calling the cops on the black guy in the hoodie.

You misunderstand. Not “anyone”. We’ve had traveling sales people, people who are lost, people who are touristing, people who are exercising, people who are visiting. All of them make sense and are obvious. What we don’t have are people who are loitering. Loitering people do NOT ride their bikes for 5 miles to find a nice place to loiter.

So one does not call as soon as they see “anyone I don’t recognize.” The only reason to call would be someone who is doing something very unlikely and unusual like loitering aimlessly in a place they had to bike 5 miles to get to.
Or in the case of trash dumping, usual but unwelcome – like parking a loaded pickup truck at the side of the road out of sight of any houses and milling about the tailgate when someone drives by.

People who run meth labs are pretty well known for not being safe individuals.

And if they actually *were* unsafe individuals, there'd be a hell of a lot more random explosions on the news. Given the inherent dangers involved with mixing meth in quantity, and given that meth is in ample supply, I'm pretty sure that the people who set up meth-labs are actually a lot more safety oriented than you give them credit for.

“Unsafe” as in aggressive and violent toward those who walk in on them, like the homeowner coming home to a meth lab in the cabin. Urban areas have this problem in abandoned houses, too, usually a drug use place rather than drug manufacture, though.

Here’s a random google on a random state for “meth lab busts”

1.

Meth lab busts in W.Va. up 85 pct. in 2013 - WKYT
www.wkyt.com/.../Meth-lab-busts-in-WVa-up-85-pct-in-201...
o
WKYT TV
Jan 27, 2014 - A West Virginia State Police report says authorities seized 533 meth labs, compared to 288 in 2012.
​

From the same state:

http://www.state.wv.us/swmb/Admn/Meth/Index.htm
According to the US Drug Enforcement Agency, clandestine methamphetamine laboratory activity in West Virginia, which has been very high, decreased as a result of state and Federal laws regulating the sale of precursors. Previously, methamphetamine manufacture appeared to be centered in the Panhandle region of the state, but has expanded to include other areas of northern West Virginia as well as some clandestine laboratory sites in the southeastern portion of the state bordering Kentucky and Virginia. In addition, methamphetamine distributors in West Virginia often share Mexican sources of supply with distributors in Virginia's Shenandoah Valley region.

If you suspect someone is operating a methamphetamine lab in your neighborhood, do not go near it -call the police. Once the lab is shut down, the officer in charge should notify appropriate government agencies including the WV DEP at (304) 926-0465.

​

These don’t happen so much in dense populations because they SMELL – strongly. Easy to find if anyone is nearby. So they target remote areas where they can get away with the odor.

Nothing. But the kid will have had someone watching out for them. Plus it takes cops a while to respond.

If I were to call the cops on you for doing that, I'd be wasting their fucking time. Just like how 9 out of 10 times, if it isn't 10 out of 10 times, so do your calls.

Right. That’s why I don’t call, I just watch out a little bit for others.

I remember a few years back, there was this old man who lived in the neighborhood, and who'd walk around like he was drunk all the time. But he was completely harmless. One day, he was just hanging out near a local park that also happened to be frequented by kids. Then some overzealous paranoid housewife, taking style points from you, called the cops on him.

So you’ll note that I do not and would not call on someone who is around a lot. You’ve mistaken my “style”. We have folks like that, too.

All that person making the call had to do was go and talk to the guy, and they'd have learned he was a threat to absolutely no one.

The moral of the story? What you *think* is suspicious, and what actually *is*, are two very different things.

This is true. And what seems suspicious in my neighborhood is different from what seems suspicious in yours. In my neighborhood, people walking around with guns is not suspicious at all. But loitering is. Because that’s what normal around here.

And not a judge in the county will convict me of it. Probably not a cop in the county will arrest me for it. And the drunk stays off the road.

How wonderful it must be to live in a country where all the cops and judges flaunt the laws they're supposed to uphold. Look, if you take the key from a drunk friend so they don't drive, great. No problem with that. To a stranger, not so much.

I was talking about friends and acquaintances, not strangers. Drunk strangers are not so wise to confront (see “walking around with guns, above”).


…

An interesting thing about this thread is that some people take it as a joke, a slam. They have never once considered that any action they do can prevent a murder or other crime. Some do not think about murder or crime as being in their sphere. So it seems silly and foolish to even think about it. They picture “stopping crime” as being something one can only do during the commission of the crime. And they picture people talking about it as wannabe caped crusaders. It’s all a joke about something they don’t ever think about.

Other people think, “oh, yeah, there’s a level of public action that can reduce crime before it starts. Here’s what I’ve thought about.” Kind of in the “well-lit parking lot” sphere of actions.

Some people are the Kitty Genovese onlookers.

Some people are, yeah, violence is a thing I’ve always had to consider. There are very definite things that if you _ever_ forget, you are at high risk, such as Mumbles’ post.

It’s been interesting seeing all those different viewpoints collide in this thread.

 

[fromderinside]

Just curious.

Wipe. Then flush.

Murder's like committing a bowel movement. People do it. Its part of our nature.

Best one can do about murder is to clean up and get rid of it.

If one wants to know what one does about murder in a society of laws one should ask that question.

 

[dystopian]

So… tone alert here. I’m not sure if you’re outraged by my answer or not, but I’m not outraged at yours, just so you know the tone here. I’m in a happy mood and perfectly willing to describe for you a situation that it appears is not one you can picture readily. It’s a description of the _different_ risks and dangers that a person may face in different places.

Outraged? No. Mildly disgusted? Yes. Disappointed that stereotypes about rural Americans are once again being proven accurate? Yes to that too.

This person was not in a car. If he had been in a car, I would have been able to see it. If he were taking a break from a long drive, he would not do it on a blind corner, he’d move 1/10 mile down the road and park safely. If someone broke down, they would hike to a house to make a call, because there is no cell service.

He was on a bicycle. Not a mountain bike or a racing bike or even a commuting bike as sometimes comes through here (my husband commutes on a bike, others come through maybe 5-6 times a year), but this guy was on a ratty old bike that would not be great for commuting.

That means your original argument that he could be there specifically to dump trash makes even less sense.

We see folks down in the valley commuting on bikes of all sorts – some are fitness buffs, some look like people who lost their licenses for DUI and are doing whatever it takes to get to work. But none of them looks like this.

This is almost entirely where my disgust comes from; you judging this person based on how he looks. Assuming the worst of someone just because of how they look or them being out of place is just *not* something a decent human being should do.

Bear in mind that this is a road with a fairly aggressive hill, although this spot is the flattest part of it; a one-mile stretch of only slight incline.

Which again, makes your original argument make even less sense.

And it is not a commuting corridor from anywhere far away. Anyone who is not a neighbor would be more likely to take a better road.

Assuming they know about it to begin with, or aren't just exploring the area or enjoying the open air.

It is a dirt road in the country that probably gets a total of 40 cars a day on it and maybe 5 bikes a year not counting my husband or the annual bike-team workout.

I'm going to have to repeat myself, I see. Nothing you just said constitutes a valid reason to call the cops on someone. Oh no! You've only ever seen maybe 5 bikes a year on that road! Must be a criminal. This is ridiculous.

In this area, anyone who needs anything goes to a house to ask.

No, you mean; they do that as far as *you* know. There isn't a neighborhood/region/area on the *planet* where *everybody* does a certain something.

People who see people stop their pickups in the middle of the road to chat for 10 minutes.

Irrelevant to the point, even if it were true and universally so of everyone in the area (which it almost certainly isn't)

This guy was sitting on a guard-rail looking at the year-round hunting cabin of my next door neighbor (1/2 mile from my place). Bear in mind that it is an area that has several meth lab busts per year. Guns and all.

And we go right back to repeating myself. This is *not* a valid argument to call the cops on someone. "It's remote! There's several meth labs busted a year! He looks odd! MUST BE A CRIMINAL."; no. Just no. You're being driven by the Negativity Effect; a common bias.

Anyone has a right to be here. We acknowledge that our area is attractive to coyotes, bears and meth labs.

Your statements contradict each other. On the one hand, you say that everybody has a right to be there; on the other hand, whenever you see someone you don't know and whose appearance you don't like, you call the cops on them. That is not the behavior of someone who genuinely believes everyone has a right to be there.

You misunderstand. Not “anyone”. We’ve had traveling sales people, people who are lost, people who are touristing, people who are exercising, people who are visiting. All of them make sense and are obvious. What we don’t have are people who are loitering. Loitering people do NOT ride their bikes for 5 miles to find a nice place to loiter.

No, you're just proving my overall point here. In fact, if you DID call the cops on EVERYONE you didn't know, *regardless* of how they looked or what you can deduce about their purpose for being there, I've have more respect for you. As it stands, I see no difference between what you're doing and the rich white guy calling the cops on the black dude in the hoodie walking down the street.

In my neighborhood, people walking around with guns is not suspicious at all. But loitering is. Because that’s what normal around here.

And you see nothing wrong with this? NOTHING at all?

People walking around with guns = perfectly fine. Okay, this is already pretty disturbing to me, but fine, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're all responsible individuals and properly trained.

People 'loitering' = panic! call the cops!

Yes, I stand by my original sentiment; your attitude is morally repugnant to me.

 

[Rhea]

Yes, I stand by my original sentiment; your attitude is morally repugnant to me.

That's okay. I get that you can't really picture the scenario.

Question, is there anyone doing anything that would ever cause you to call the cops to PREVENT a crime? If you own a convenient store and a person comes in and hangs out, and hangs out, and looks outside down the road, then comes back in, maybe ducks when police go by. Is there any scenario where you can envision yourself thinking, "if I make a call, this might prevent a problem"?

Note that I did not find the person suspicious because of his clothes. Nor because of his bike. Nor because of where he was. Nor because of how he looked. It was because the combination of where he was AND what he was doing AND how he was doing it AND how long he stayed.

And while I get that you might not be able to see why this was suspicious, it nevertheless is very suspicious for this area. Note also, that I didn't walk out and shoot the poor bastard, I merely called the cops to notify them that someone was acting very strangely in the 'hood, and later told the neighbor whose house he was watching that someone had been there.

Morally repugnant? 'Kay.

 

[Rhea]

No, you're just proving my overall point here. In fact, if you DID call the cops on EVERYONE you didn't know, *regardless* of how they looked or what you can deduce about their purpose for being there, I've have more respect for you. As it stands, I see no difference between what you're doing and the rich white guy calling the cops on the black dude in the hoodie walking down the street.

looking further at this, I'm surprised you see no difference. Are you implying a scene where it's a street that practically no one ever walks (i mean, literally, 5 people a year, maybe?) and the hoodie-dude stops to hang out for a while in front of the house and the street is a 5-mile walk from anywhere?

 

[dystopian]

That's okay. I get that you can't really picture the scenario.

I can picture it just fine. You're just making the mistake of thinking that anyone who understands the scenario would agree with you.

Question, is there anyone doing anything that would ever cause you to call the cops to PREVENT a crime?

Strawman argument. I'm obviously not saying that one can't call the cops on someone suspicious. I'm saying that your standards for determining who is and is not suspicious is woefully inadequate.

Note that I did not find the person suspicious because of his clothes. Nor because of his bike. Nor because of where he was. Nor because of how he looked. It was because the combination of where he was AND what he was doing AND how he was doing it AND how long he stayed.

So actually you DID do it because of where he was.

And because of what he was doing? You explicitly pointed out that he was NOT doing anything. He was just there. Which is *not* suspicious behavior, especially not in the middle of fucking nowhere. Nor is the length of time someone spends just hanging out at all relevant to whether or not the person is suspicious.

And I find your claim that his looks aren't involved at all *highly* questionable. You went out of your way to describe his appearance; you wouldn't do that if it wasn't a contributing factor.

And while I get that you might not be able to see why this was suspicious, it nevertheless is very suspicious for this area.

The fact that people in your area consider such things suspicious is yet another disappointing validation of stereotypes about the American countryside.

Note also, that I didn't walk out and shoot the poor bastard, I merely called the cops to notify them that someone was acting very strangely in the 'hood, and later told the neighbor whose house he was watching that someone had been there.

It should be quite obvious by now that you "merely" calling the cops on someone who by your own admission was not in fact doing anything wrong is what I find morally reprehensible. Saying that 'hey, it's cool, at least I didn't shoot him!' doesn't make it any better. Basic human decency does not allow for us to assume the worst in strangers.

looking further at this, I'm surprised you see no difference. Are you implying a scene where it's a street that practically no one ever walks (i mean, literally, 5 people a year, maybe?) and the hoodie-dude stops to hang out for a while in front of the house and the street is a 5-mile walk from anywhere?

The fact that you can't understand why I don't see a difference is not my problem. It doesn't matter if its a busy thoroughfare or a street that only five people a year use; simply being somewhere is not and should not be cause to call the cops on them. I don't care what justifications you think you have; there is no excuse for calling the cops on such flimsy reasoning and lack of any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever. If you saw them with a weapon, if you saw them with drugs, if you overheard them talking about committing a crime, fine. That is different. You, however, saw nothing more than a person you didn't know hanging out in a place where people don't normally do that. So fucking what? If that sort of response is normal there then it is no wonder that rural people have a reputation for being insular, paranoid, and mean to outsiders.

 

[Rhea]

'kay.

I really am curious if anything would ever induce you to call the cops on the possibility of preventing crime. What would an "adequate" justification look like?

Strawman argument. I'm obviously not saying that one can't call the cops on someone suspicious. I'm saying that your standards for determining who is and is not suspicious is woefully inadequate.

So what does someone who is actually suspicious look like? School me. What should I wait for before I'm justified?

I called once on a building engulfed in flames, too. Turned out it was a deliberate fire, but I felt it was right to call and check that, and I'd do it again. Dispatch just informed me that it was a "controlled burn" and we were all fine. Sadly, I previously had not, and my neighbor's house burned to the ground. I had smelled something, but I thought it was just someone burning trash so I didn't call. Then I saw some smoke and thought, must be a brush pile. Finally, when ashes started falling out of the sky onto us was about the time I heard the fire engines.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I think the point is that you weren't actually preventing crime.

 

[Rhea]

Aaaah, because you're sure of what he wasn't doing. Okay.

Well, curious about your take, too, Tom. Do you think it's possible to detect any activity that, when reported or shared among neighbors has the possibility of reducing crime? Or is this so obviously "morally repugnant" because no person who commits a crime is ever detectable before they do it?

I realize that might sound snarky - it's not intended to be. I'm not angry, merely curious whether you would ever call anything happening in your neighborhood suspicious at any time, and if so, what is the threshold?

I do get that neither of you think that a person just sitting down and looking around in the middle of seriously nowhere looks at all like a person who does the kinds of crimes that people looking for uninhabited building in the middle of seriously nowhere seek to do. I'm okay with that, really. Our number 1 major crime here is meth labs. Our sheriffs come to towns and schools to tell people what to look for and ask for tips and calls if any of these things appear, but I do get that you think a person should not consider the local Sheriff's department a reliable source of information, and one should ignore their advice and instead rely on the feelings of anonymous people in foreign countries on the internet... though I'm not thinking this is actually a good tactic. But I get where you are coming from, I do.

You wrote:

I think the point is that you weren't actually preventing crime.

But if the neighbor that I called decided to make sure his place was locked that week, and had a friend stop by to make it look occupied, then that could indeed have changed things. Well, maybe you don't think so. But those are things neighbors do around here to deter crime. Maybe in your neighborhood, if you know of a string of crimes being committed nearby you do nothing. I dunno.

 

[dystopian]

'kay.

I really am curious if anything would ever induce you to call the cops on the possibility of preventing crime. What would an "adequate" justification look like?

Seeing an actual crime in progress or obvious preparation thereof. You did not describe either.

I called once on a building engulfed in flames, too. Turned out it was a deliberate fire, but I felt it was right to call and check that, and I'd do it again.

Well whoop. How is this relevant to the discussion? Obviously when you see a building on fire you call the fire department. 99 out of a 100 times, a building on fire is not going to be a controlled burn. You can not say the same about your original situation however; 99 out of a 100 times, a dude sitting on a guard rail is just a dude sitting on a guard rail, and not a crime waiting to happen. With the fire, you have a clear observable fact that would justify a call to the authorities. You have no such observable fact when calling the cops on someone just hanging out.

Dispatch just informed me that it was a "controlled burn" and we were all fine. Sadly, I previously had not, and my neighbor's house burned to the ground. I had smelled something, but I thought it was just someone burning trash so I didn't call. Then I saw some smoke and thought, must be a brush pile. Finally, when ashes started falling out of the sky onto us was about the time I heard the fire engines.

A past failure in judgement does not justify an overzealous approach today.

It's also ironic that you ignored it because you thought it was someone burning trash; since that is in fact illegal in many places and potentially hazardous to the environment.

Or is this so obviously "morally repugnant" because no person who commits a crime is ever detectable before they do it?

The reason I called it such is because the attitude perpetuates a certain mentality that is harmful to overall societal cohesion. When a society is paranoid and suspicious of strangers; don't be surprised if society develops in ways to justify that paranoia and suspicion. If, however, society assumes the best of strangers, we'll find that generally, the strangers will reciprocate even if some do not.

I do get that neither of you think that a person just sitting down and looking around in the middle of seriously nowhere looks at all like a person who does the kinds of crimes that people looking for uninhabited building in the middle of seriously nowhere seek to do.

Hold on. Hold on.

You previously stated that you did not call the cops on him because of *how* he looked. Now you're describing him as 'the kind of person who does crimes'. What exactly does a person who does crime look like? Oh, right, you already described such a person for us in a previous post: "Somebody scruffy looking sitting on a ratty bicycle"

In other words, a poor person?

Do you want to rectify your claim that his appearance had nothing to do with your decision?

Do you maybe want to start acknowledging/understanding why I'm having trouble with your action?

I'm okay with that, really. Our number 1 major crime here is meth labs. Our sheriffs come to towns and schools to tell people what to look for and ask for tips and calls if any of these things appear, but I do get that you think a person should not consider the local Sheriff's department a reliable source of information,

I do not put a lot of trust in the competence or fairness of some backwater American sheriff, no; they don't exactly have a positive reputation in either of those areas. If your sheriff tells you to call the cops whenever you see 'somebody scruffy looking sitting on a ratty bicycle'; then there's a few civil liberties groups you might want to consider contacting.

But if the neighbor that I called decided to make sure his place was locked that week, and had a friend stop by to make it look occupied, then that could indeed have changed things. Well, maybe you don't think so. But those are things neighbors do around here to deter crime. Maybe in your neighborhood, if you know of a string of crimes being committed nearby you do nothing. I dunno.

In my neighborhood, we don't call the cops just because we see a poor person; and our cops certainly don't tell us to call them whenever we see poor people hanging around. In my neighborhood, when there's a string of crime being committed, we expect the cops to do their jobs and we don't then engage in witch hunts against anyone 'suspicious looking'.

 

[Rhea]

I think I begin to see why you are so strident about this. You think that I labeled that person as “poor” and therefore “beneath me” or “not allowed in my neighborhood” and that makes me mean and arrogant and elitist and bigoted.

Oh. Oh, no. No no no. You have seriously misunderstood. MOST of the people are poor here. Almost all of the people who go by here are poor. This is the land of the porch refrigerator and the bathtub in the field to water the cows.

But all of them are _purposeful_.


We get people who are scruffy looking on ratty bikes. They are on their way to work, usually on a bike because they lost their license to drive a car for DUI. They are on their way somewhere. We get some spandex-clad adventurers from time to time. And they are on their way to somewhere. We get people walking, or riding quads (illegally). We get people in camo with a rifle slung over their shoulder on their way to a woods for hunting. We get (not all the way up here, but down the street) scruffy looking young couples from the trailer park looking for a place to enjoy talking without interruption. My kids are often out there looking scruffy.

But all of them are _purposeful_.


And there are some things that go together and some that don’t. A purposeful person on a bike might stop to rest or drink water. But they don’t do it on the flat, and they don’t do it when going _down_ the hill. A scruffy person in the neighborhood is _more_ likely to wave, chat and go to a house because they are more like to be from a neighborhood like this. Someone from down in the city is very unlikely to feel comfortable just hanging out in the country. So unlikely that they do not do it.

Seeing an actual crime in progress or obvious preparation thereof. You did not describe either.

Okay. What’s “obvious”?

I called once on a building engulfed in flames, too. Turned out it was a deliberate fire, but I felt it was right to call and check that, and I'd do it again.

Well whoop. How is this relevant to the discussion? Obviously when you see a building on fire you call the fire department. 99 out of a 100 times, a building on fire is not going to be a controlled burn.

This turns out to not be at all true. I’d say more than half of burns in our town are purposeful destructions of old barns. Interesting that you think it’s obvious when other people would not. Different places have very different “normal” activities. I get that you think all places are exactly the same, but I don’t see that as being accurate.

A past failure in judgement does not justify an overzealous approach today.

It's also ironic that you ignored it because you thought it was someone burning trash; since that is in fact illegal in many places and potentially hazardous to the environment.

I try to learn from my past actions.
And I am not the trash-burning police. It would be nice to stop it, but it’s not at the top of my list.

Or is this so obviously "morally repugnant" because no person who commits a crime is ever detectable before they do it?

The reason I called it such is because the attitude perpetuates a certain mentality that is harmful to overall societal cohesion. When a society is paranoid and suspicious of strangers; don't be surprised if society develops in ways to justify that paranoia and suspicion. If, however, society assumes the best of strangers, we'll find that generally, the strangers will reciprocate even if some do not.

This is an interesting interpretation. We are not paranoid of strangers. We talk to folks we don’t know on the street, step out of the house to give directions when needed, offer to give rides to people we see walking. I would say there is a much _much_ greater acceptance of the safety of strangers here than in any more dense place I’ve lived.

You previously stated that you did not call the cops on him because of *how* he looked. Now you're describing him as 'the kind of person who does crimes'. What exactly does a person who does crime look like? Oh, right, you already described such a person for us in a previous post: "Somebody scruffy looking sitting on a ratty bicycle"

I described a whole lot more than that. I’m surprised you only noticed this part.

It’s a person who is doing thing A _and_ thing B _and_ thing C _and_ dressed like D _and_ doing it at E time of day. Any one of those is normal. And two of those is normal. All of them together is suspicious.

In other words, a poor person?

No. You are really wrong on thinking this is my criteria.

I'm okay with that, really. Our number 1 major crime here is meth labs. Our sheriffs come to towns and schools to tell people what to look for and ask for tips and calls if any of these things appear, but I do get that you think a person should not consider the local Sheriff's department a reliable source of information,

I do not put a lot of trust in the competence or fairness of some backwater American sheriff, no; they don't exactly have a positive reputation in either of those areas. If your sheriff tells you to call the cops whenever you see 'somebody scruffy looking sitting on a ratty bicycle'; then there's a few civil liberties groups you might want to consider contacting.

Sigh. They don’t say to call if only those two criteria are met. I don’t know why you are willing to erase everything else that was also in the criteria and try to knock down a cartoon of what I said instead of what I really said. Maybe it’s just easier to knock down that way. I’m not sure.

In my neighborhood, we don't call the cops just because we see a poor person; and our cops certainly don't tell us to call them whenever we see poor people hanging around.

Neither do we. It’s a poor town. Everybody’s poor. It would be cartoonish for that to be our criteria.

In my neighborhood, when there's a string of crime being committed, we expect the cops to do their jobs and we don't then engage in witch hunts against anyone 'suspicious looking'.

You must have more cops than us, then. We expect our citizens to help out in preventing crime. Our county is about 1/10 the size of the Netherlands. We have TWO on-duty Sheriffs at any given time. TWO. They may have to drive as far as 90 miles to respond to a call. A particular area may see a patrol once a month. You have 1000 people per square mile, we have 45.

Things, it turns out, are a little different. I get that you have a different societal model than we have. That’s okay, I don’t call you morally repugnant for having lots of different worries in your place than I have in mine.

 

[dystopian]

I think I begin to see why you are so strident about this. You think that I labeled that person as “poor” and therefore “beneath me” or “not allowed in my neighborhood” and that makes me mean and arrogant and elitist and bigoted.

Oh. Oh, no. No no no. You have seriously misunderstood. MOST of the people are poor here. Almost all of the people who go by here are poor. This is the land of the porch refrigerator and the bathtub in the field to water the cows.

But all of them are _purposeful_.

You just keep digging that hole deeper.

The way you described him, it was painfully obvious that his appearance *was* indeed a contributing factor to your decision; and the way you described him, it was clear that his poverty or appearance thereof was important to you AND that you considered him poorer than you (why else would you have drawn attention to his 'ratty bike'? You'd have just called it a 'bike'). Even if you genuinely believe(d) that you're both at the same level of poverty, it still obviously matters because now you're saying it's about "purposefulness". In other words, it's okay to be poor so long as you're doing something useful, but the moment you're not you get treated like a criminal.

How deep is that hole by now, you think?

We get people who are scruffy looking on ratty bikes. They are on their way to work, usually on a bike because they lost their license to drive a car for DUI. They are on their way somewhere. We get some spandex-clad adventurers from time to time. And they are on their way to somewhere. We get people walking, or riding quads (illegally). We get people in camo with a rifle slung over their shoulder on their way to a woods for hunting. We get (not all the way up here, but down the street) scruffy looking young couples from the trailer park looking for a place to enjoy talking without interruption. My kids are often out there looking scruffy.

But all of them are _purposeful_.

Still getting deeper.

And there are some things that go together and some that don’t. A purposeful person on a bike might stop to rest or drink water. But they don’t do it on the flat, and they don’t do it when going _down_ the hill. A scruffy person in the neighborhood is _more_ likely to wave, chat and go to a house because they are more like to be from a neighborhood like this. Someone from down in the city is very unlikely to feel comfortable just hanging out in the country. So unlikely that they do not do it.

Deeper.

This turns out to not be at all true. I’d say more than half of burns in our town are purposeful destructions of old barns. Interesting that you think it’s obvious when other people would not. Different places have very different “normal” activities. I get that you think all places are exactly the same, but I don’t see that as being accurate.

Which isn't relevant to my actual point since you still have an event in progress that is clearly dangerous if not controlled. Calling the fire department when you see a fire and finding out it's a controlled burn and you wasted your call is NOT equivalent to calling the cops on a suspicious looking person. It's equivalent to calling the cops on someone in ballistic armor invading someone's house, only to find out that SWAT was taking down a criminal. If you call the cops in that scenario and it turns out you're wrong, no harm done except waste a minute of some receptionist's time. If you call the cops on someone and it turns out they're just hanging out on the side of the road, you've wasted the receptionist's time, the cop who had to go check it out's time, the suspect's time, and depending on the way the cop went about dealing with the suspect may have caused undue emotional distress and/or inconvenience too.

And I am not the trash-burning police. It would be nice to stop it, but it’s not at the top of my list.

You're not the regular police either, but that doesn't seem to stop you.

This is an interesting interpretation. We are not paranoid of strangers. We talk to folks we don’t know on the street, step out of the house to give directions when needed, offer to give rides to people we see walking. I would say there is a much _much_ greater acceptance of the safety of strangers here than in any more dense place I’ve lived.

This is not compatible with your actions. You talk to strangers, give them directions, offer them rides... sure. But you ONLY do this to strangers who fit into an acceptable level of 'strangeness'. The moment they deviate from that, you no longer treat them that way. After all, if you were TRULY accepting of strangers, you would have gone and TALKED to the guy, like you say you do with strangers. But instead you called the cops on him. Without talking to him.

Do you HONESTLY believe the people in your area are the sort to be accepting of strangers no matter what they look like? Because I find that hard to believe. I'd bet you money that the way they treat the 'average' stranger who comes through (who'se probably from the same general area in the country to begin with and so dresses and acts within the acceptable range) is going to be VERY different from the way they treat some of the people walking around in my city. Especially if those people dressed up for the occasion. Be honest, how friendly would they be to someone who looked like they just went clubbing in an Amsterdam club called the Cockring?

I described a whole lot more than that. I’m surprised you only noticed this part.

Everything else is just glazing meant to cover up the part I pointed out.

Things, it turns out, are a little different. I get that you have a different societal model than we have. That’s okay, I don’t call you morally repugnant for having lots of different worries in your place than I have in mine.

Helping the cops out is fine. Helping them out by profiling people based on whether they look like they have a 'purpose' is absurd.

 

[dx713]

So, how would you help them?
Cops count on the inhabitants to help them by reporting things unusual. Especially in a rural country like Rhea describes.

I can understand your objections to that, on a privacy/freedom point of view, but you have to compromise. There's a kind of social contract with neighbours in such parts that they will look out for each-other, and the lack of such society, the "alone in a crowd" thing, is often what is criticized of big cities. Reporting unusual appearances (note that this is not "calling the cops on them", I didn't see Rhea demanding intervention, just reporting) is something you do in this case. Even more here in Europe where we've surrendered dealing with dangerous situations to our states (which I support, I prefer to have to watch out for police guns than the average joe's ones, but it adds the necessity of police).

The police might or might not come to see, depending on what other things they've noticed or have reported, or just make a note to "check that house more closely next time you patrol there". As long as they do it respecfully, I'm on Rhea's side of the compromise. I don't want to live in a place where nobody watches out for me.

 

[Rhea]

The way you described him, it was painfully obvious that his appearance *was* indeed a contributing factor to your decision; and the way you described him, it was clear that his poverty or appearance thereof was important to you AND that you considered him poorer than you (why else would you have drawn attention to his 'ratty bike'? You'd have just called it a 'bike'). Even if you genuinely believe(d) that you're both at the same level of poverty, it still obviously matters because now you're saying it's about "purposefulness". In other words, it's okay to be poor so long as you're doing something useful, but the moment you're not you get treated like a criminal.

I've described what I was thinking and you've just told me that I was thinking something else.

??

I'm trying to describe to you how unusual and out of place something is. But since it's normal in Amsterdam you think I'm out of line.
Ironically, while claiming that if some of my peeps came to your area, you'd be very alarmed.

Whatevs.

 

[Rhea]

And yes, for the record, the police never came out. They simply logged the presence of someone acting suspiciously. As they should, IMHO.

 

[dystopian]

I've described what I was thinking and you've just told me that I was thinking something else.

No, the description you gave of what you were thinking falls squarely in line with my assessment; you'd just prefer not to see it that way just as most of us would prefer not to accept someone else's unflattering assessment of our motivations, however accurate they are. Our minds protect ourselves from such things by convincing us the other's assessment must be wrong; after all, *we* know what we meant, right? If only it worked that way...

I'm trying to describe to you how unusual and out of place something is. But since it's normal in Amsterdam you think I'm out of line.

But that's the whole point; something being unusual and out of place is not in itself a reason to call the cops. Your response to seeing something unusual and out of place is to respond with a degree of suspicion that doesn't allow you to do anything but immediately move to an extreme action, as opposed to doing what you yourself claim is the normal routine with strangers, which is to go talk to him; and I'm saying that is the *wrong* response. By all means, be suspicious, but be suspicious in moderation; and try to verify your suspicions without making base assumptions about others that villify them.

Incidentally, by saying "since it's normal in Amsterdam you think I'm out of line", you demonstrate one of the main differences between rural and urban populations. The thing is, it wouldn't necessarily be normal in Amsterdam; it's just that we *constantly* see things that aren't "normal", and so learn to instinctively understand that our prejudicial response is not likely to be the correct one. If every gut feeling we have upon seeing something not normal that we think is 'suspicious' was actually *correct*; we'd be living in a total state of violent anarchy. Since that's clearly not the case, it must mean that the majority of our gut responses are complete bullshit. It's the big open secret that makes urban living work; the willingness and ability to give strangers; even the ones that seem really abnormal; the benefit of the doubt. Clearly, rural people don't (usually) share the ability to do so with the abnormal strangers.

Ironically, while claiming that if some of my peeps came to your area, you'd be very alarmed.

You're joking right? Do you know how many American tourists we get? You really think they're all from the east and west coasts? Some American hick coming to Amsterdam would alarm absolutely nobody; though he might annoy people depending on how ignorant he acts.

I can understand your objections to that, on a privacy/freedom point of view, but you have to compromise.

Well, actually no, I don't *have* to compromise. But alright.

There's a kind of social contract with neighbours in such parts that they will look out for each-other, and the lack of such society, the "alone in a crowd" thing, is often what is criticized of big cities.

Those criticisms aren't particularly valid, however. In fact, due to there being many more eyes in a city, the chances of genuine criminal behavior being stopped/punished is considerably higher in the city, even if your neighbors aren't looking out for you specifically. It's just that the far greater concentration of people naturally means more concentration of crime; giving the appearance that you'd be better off in the countryside. I don't know about you, but if let's say a serial killer came after me with an axe, I'd rather be in the middle of a big city where there's witnesses as opposed to the middle of fucking nowhere where I *might* get lucky and someone drives by.

The police might or might not come to see, depending on what other things they've noticed or have reported, or just make a note to "check that house more closely next time you patrol there". As long as they do it respecfully, I'm on Rhea's side of the compromise. I don't want to live in a place where nobody watches out for me.

It's not that I don't agree with the base principle; it's the reasons given for why this person was 'suspicious'. It's the baseless connections drawn; 'oh he was on a ratty bike, looked scruffy, and he didn't seem to have a reason to be there -> we have a lot of meth labs here.'; baseless inferrences and profiling, that's what I take issue with.

 

[Rhea]

Ironically, while claiming that if some of my peeps came to your area, you'd be very alarmed.

You're joking right? Do you know how many American tourists we get? You really think they're all from the east and west coasts? Some American hick coming to Amsterdam would alarm absolutely nobody; though he might annoy people depending on how ignorant he acts.

I was meaning when you said this:

People walking around with guns = perfectly fine. Okay, this is already pretty disturbing to me, but fine, let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they're all responsible individuals and properly trained.

But what I'm really interested in and you have not yet answered, and I'm genuinely curious;

I asked,

Question, is there anyone doing anything that would ever cause you to call the cops to PREVENT a crime? If you own a convenient store and a person comes in and hangs out, and hangs out, and looks outside down the road, then comes back in, maybe ducks when police go by. Is there any scenario where you can envision yourself thinking, "if I make a call, this might prevent a problem"?

you said:

Unless there's an indication of actual wrongdoing, present or imminent, there's no reason whatsoever to call the cops; and doing so is some really bad paranoid profiling.

Strawman argument. I'm obviously not saying that one can't call the cops on someone suspicious. I'm saying that your standards for determining who is and is not suspicious is woefully inadequate.

to which I replied, asking again,

So what does someone who is actually suspicious look like? School me. What should I wait for before I'm justified?

and Tom also replied and I asked him, too:

Well, curious about your take, too, Tom. Do you think it's possible to detect any activity that, when reported or shared among neighbors has the possibility of reducing crime? Or is this so obviously "morally repugnant" because no person who commits a crime is ever detectable before they do it?

and dystopian again asserted, still not having answered the first two times he was asked,

Seeing an actual crime in progress or obvious preparation thereof. You did not describe either.

So please help a person out here. I'm asking a direct question for the fourth time.
What is an actual Dystopian or Tom Sawyer approved description of a call about a suspicious person that is justified, if ever?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What is an actual Dystopian or Tom Sawyer approved description of a call about a suspicious person that is justified, if ever?

Suspicious Person : Somebody who's doing something other than standing around minding his own business.

 

[Togo]

I suppose my baseline would be someone who is performing actions that are consistent with preparing for a crime, and not consistent with anything else. I've called in suspicious behaviour twice, once for someone climbing over a roof and in through an upper floor window, and once for someone abseiling from a helicopter to land on the roof of a commercial building. Both times it turned out the people were in fact, police officers themselves. But the scruffy guy hanging around outside the jewelry shop - never occurred to me that might be a problem. A lot of people buy jewelry, and some of them don't dress nicely.