Thread: Chicago PD gives up

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Car stolen? Meh. We might send someone out later.
Garage broken into and all your tools stolen? Oh, well.

This is a testament to the failure that is Chicago. For those who think 911 will save you, so you don't need the means to protect yourself, wake up....

Huh ... coincidentally, THE city where Rahm Emanuel presides as mayor AND the city with one of the toughest gun "control" measures around...

Go figure.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Car stolen? Meh. We might send someone out later.
Garage broken into and all your tools stolen? Oh, well.

This is a testament to the failure that is Chicago. For those who think 911 will save you, so you don't need the means to protect yourself, wake up....

Since when is auto theft a lesser crime? All the more reason to be armed to the teeth in Chicago.

Perhaps we will have a few thousand drones armed with auto weapons patroling this city in the future. Then when it sees a crime in progress it can take out the criminal with a short burst of lead. The eye in the sky. With xray and infrared vision. Of course if that is the case, their politicians would be killed off pretty fast.....

Originally Posted by MattInFla

For those who think 911 will save you, so you don't need the means to protect yourself, wake up....

That comment kinda contradicts the spirit of the policy that the article is discussing, doesn't it?

Seems to me the intent of the policy is to free police officers up from responding to more mundane crimes in order to have them available when "threat to life and limb" type crimes are being, or have been, commited.

In other words, the police will be protecting people rather than peoples' belongings.

If you're going to make this kind of criticisim it should be to "those who think 911 will save your tools, so you don't need the means to protect those tools yourself, wake up...."

But I don't know of too many places where it's okay, in the first place, to draw down on some dude stealing tools from your garage and shoot him.

Originally Posted by Good1

Huh ... coincidentally, THE city where Rahm Emanuel presides as mayor AND the city with one of the toughest gun "control" measures around...

Go figure.

and whose political 'system' is being used in the White House on the nation as a whole even as we speak...

Originally Posted by soot

That comment kinda contradicts the spirit of the policy that the article is discussing, doesn't it?

Seems to me the intent of the policy is to free police officers up from responding to more mundane crimes in order to have them available when "threat to life and limb" type crimes are being, or have been, commited.

In other words, the police will be protecting people rather than peoples' belongings.

If you're going to make this kind of criticisim it should be to "those who think 911 will save your tools, so you don't need the means to protect those tools yourself, wake up...."

But I don't know of too many places where it's okay, in the first place, to draw down on some dude stealing tools from your garage and shoot him.

Yeah, no garage burglary ever became a home burglary....

Wonder if they will take the meter maids off of patrol and put them to investigating crime. How about traffic stops and fines?

Originally Posted by OldmanDan

Wonder if they will take the meter maids off of patrol and put them to investigating crime. How about traffic stops and fines?

Can't lose the meter maids because that's a revenue function.

Lots of cities are de-prioritizing responses to property crime as funding keeps getting tighter. In many (most?) places, unless you are a city official you should not expect same day response to any personal property crime. You will probably still get a decent response for commercial property or public property.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Perhaps we will have a few thousand drones armed with auto weapons patroling this city in the future. Then when it sees a crime in progress it can take out the criminal with a short burst of lead. The eye in the sky. With xray and infrared vision. Of course if that is the case, their politicians would be killed off pretty fast.....

Don't be silly, BD: "...short burst of lead" is so "O.K. Corral."

Drones will use laser bursts, set on "stun."

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Yeah, no garage burglary ever became a home burglary....

I'd be inclined to believe that a few have, though I'd also have to admit that I have no case studies or statistics to back that belief up.

I'd also be inclined to believe that in most cases the garage buglary is a crime of opportunity that the thief engages in because there's a good deal less of a chance that he'll run into the homeowners which in turn improves his chances of making an undetected getaway and also lessens the chance that a property crime of opportunity will turn into a crime of violence that carries much stiffer penalties. With that in mind I'd be further inclined to believe that many, if not most, garage burglaries do not turn into home burglaries.

But that's neither here nor there.

I don't really read the article in the OP as saying that the police are going to take a pass on reports of burgalry in progress or home invasion.

What I see it saying is that when I call the police to report that I just detected that my shed had been broken into overnight and my lawnmower stolen the police would be giving that report a low priority so that when the guy across town calls to report that there's someone breaking in through his downstairs window there will be cops available to respond to that more urgent call.

I suspect that this is something that is pretty much SOP for many police departments, to some extent, to begin with.

I mean, I was pulled over for speeding one time and the cop was at the window of my car asking for license and registration and whatnot when an urgent call came over the radio. He handed me my shit back, told me I was lucky, and took off like a bat out of hell to respond to what I can only imagine was a much more pressing issue than Joe Suburbia doing 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone.

I think what Chicago is saying is that they've got such a high volume of crime that even bothering to stop for the guy doing 45 MPH in a 30 MPH zone isn't an option right now.

Don't get me wrong here though. I believe that citizens should be able to CCW everywhere, and I would if my state allowed it. I have zero issues with shooting people in order to preserve life and limb.

But I see this announcement as saying that the police won't be giving equal priority to those sorts of crimes where the victim wouldn't be legally allowed, in any state, under any circumstances, to shoot the perpetrator in the first place.

I believe that in the very narrow range of circumstances where a citizen is well trained, of the proper mindset, and armed that the citizen can be a very effective first line of defense against the most serious of crimes. And I agree with the idea that, "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away".

I just don't see this policy as intersecting in any way with that belief.

If I wasn't around, and my garage was getting broken into on one side of town while my son was being kidnapped on the other, I know where I'd want the police to be.

So how does a police report get filed in case of a burglary? Do they make the victim come to the station, and then how do they document/verify the scene at all?

I understand prioritizing crimes so that the active ones get immediate attention, and the past ones get a delayed response if necessary due to other calls. But to not show up EVER to at least take the statement of the victims and record the crime seems like a bad idea. Its basically giving the green light to petty criminals to have a hey-day.

I was the victim of an attempted mugging in Seattle 20 years ago, and even though there was supposedly 24-hours of peace between gangs during that day it took the cops about 8 hours to arrive because of all of the other more pressing reports they got during the "24-hours of peace".

Originally Posted by soot

That comment kinda contradicts the spirit of the policy that the article is discussing, doesn't it?

Seems to me the intent of the policy is to free police officers up from responding to more mundane crimes in order to have them available when "threat to life and limb" type crimes are being, or have been, commited.

In other words, the police will be protecting people rather than peoples' belongings.

If you're going to make this kind of criticisim it should be to "those who think 911 will save your tools, so you don't need the means to protect those tools yourself, wake up...."

But I don't know of too many places where it's okay, in the first place, to draw down on some dude stealing tools from your garage and shoot him.

Texas among other states.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

Car stolen? Meh. We might send someone out later.
Garage broken into and all your tools stolen? Oh, well.

This is a testament to the failure that is Chicago. For those who think 911 will save you, so you don't need the means to protect yourself, wake up....

another shining example of "progressive cities" that fall apart