You'd think they could come up with something constructive. Have the officers do community service among the residents while on the clock and in uniform. You'll have even less crime that way.
They do things like place some crumpled car as a billboard somewhere prominent to remind you daily what your car might look like if you drive drunk, then post a count that gets updated daily "Days since last deadly accident" or something like that.
And on the base in question, we had on base housing. One of the duties of the police was to let you in your house if you locked yourself out accidentally. (I did once.)
But this article starts with a stake out actively trying to tempt someone to steal something. It's essentially entrapment, or not far from it.
1. Was it a crime the suspect was unlikely or unwilling to commit otherwise? (The "subjective" test.)
2. Did the actions of officers cause a normally law-abiding person to commit a crime? (The "objective" test.)
In other words, entrapment is when the police actively cause somebody to commit a crime they wouldn't have otherwise committed in similar circumstances.
In the article, the police just left a case of beer inside a car. The police created a passive opportunity, but that's not enough for entrapment... the act of steeling that beer was entirely self meditated.
That sentence has two qualifiers. I still have two people telling me I'm wrong.
In my youth, I would have agreed that a thing should just not be touched if it's not yours because maybe they will come back for it. Someday.
I'm still inclined to generally err in that direction, but I'm less judgy than I used to be of people who would be inclined to feel that a perishable -- like beer -- left out in the open for days on end must be basically abandoned and up for grabs because people don't typically buy consumables like that and leave them sitting out for days on end.
It's not normal behavior. It was intended to be temptation. Whether it meets the legal definition of entrapment or not, it makes for a town I don't really want to visit. There's no telling how far down this slippery slope they will go to keep themselves entertained and prove their paychecks aren't simply a waste of money.
I raised two kids. I've thought quite a lot about such things. I think setting up a "test" of that sort to see who will fall for it isn't nice behavior and shouldn't be done, especially not if your real motive is merely because you are bored.
For example: What if the car is also abandoned?
I was raised to be extremely upstanding and responsible etc. But you can take that too far, which is why we have and need laws that cover when certain things end: statutes of limitations, laws declaring when property is deemed abandoned, etc.
Every state in the US has laws in place that spell out under what conditions the government or another party can claim your real estate. The local government typically claims it if you haven't paid your taxes in X amount of time and resells it. If it is mortgaged, the bank can claim it if you fail to pay for X amount of time.
States also spell out when a total stranger can file legal claim on your real estate. This usually involves them openly living there, getting their mail there and paying the utilities and the like for a number of years.
Most states require a period of between ten and twenty years. The most liberal states only require five years. The most conservative -- Texas -- requires 30 years.
Countries that don't have solid processes in place for returning seemingly abandoned real estate to use by allowing some other party to establish legal claim to it wind up having extremely thorny problems, including intractable poverty for large swaths of the population.
Problems with trying to establish clear legal ownership in countries with overly conservative laws or traditions in that regard is one of the biggest challenges faced by Habitat for Humanity. Lack of ability to readily and easily say "We don't think they are coming back for it, and if they do, too bad so sad, time's up" actively undermines a functional society far worse than the occasional petty crime (such as some swiped beer).
I'm personally excessively conservative about such things. But I'm old enough to recognize that different people draw those lines in different places and that people less conservative than me don't necessarily deserve to be viewed as bad actors. They certainly don't deserve to be tricked into committing a crime so that bored police officers have something to do.
It is still not yours, and it is not your decision to make.
Simple: you inform the police that you think that car has been abandoned, and you let them deal with it. You can't just jump-start it and drive away because you think it's abandoned.
In more tribal societies it's not uncommon that people have no notion of ownership, or that it's less transactional. People who steal who I have met generally believe that it's the fault of the victim to have left that item up for grab. Just to say that the notion is quite fluid between people.
School bus 6am with its blinking lights in Mountain View CA about 8 years ago my wife got pulled over for driving past (she slowed down but didn't stop and wait). So if this happened at 8 am it would have been kinda legit. This was at 6am where there are no kids outside, taking buses.
Entrapment?
Perhaps a school started early because of a special event? Perhaps a driver in training was making his rounds with an empty bus? You can't know. Don't try to water down reasonable traffic laws because you think you know better.
It's not entrapment, because no decent driver would be tempted to ignore a school bus with its blinkers on.
Suppose you're on a motorcycle, you come to a traffic light, and it's red. It's the middle of the night, there is no traffic, and the light will never turn green, because your motorcycle isn't heavy enough to trigger the sensor in the road.
This is a pretty common case. Do you need to leave the bike there until day comes and car traffic arrives to save you?
Why are you fearing being run over when walking along a red light?
In the case of Virginia, motorcycles and bicycles can proceed through the red light after the light cycles twice (skipping their lane) or two minutes. They still have to stop. They still have to yield the right of way.
You're not stuck in the school bus scenario unless the cops who put it there maliciously keep its blinkers on for an unreasonable amount of time until you do pull up again after stopping (which then might be classified as entrapment). rhacker's wife didn't stop.
So what? The argument I responded to didn't use any aspect of the school bus case. It was "You don't get to make the call. A stop sign means stop, so you have to stop."
And that argument is obviously bunk. A red traffic light also means stop; it is perfectly comparable to a stop sign.
please learn the rules
Personal gear exempted from this rule since Joes typically don't steal from other Joes unless they enjoy painful retribution.
The stereotypes about boots buying Dodge Chargers, Mustangs, Camaros and such on 21% interest rates are very real.
source: personal experience, former civilian military contractor
Compare that to a situation I just saw on a major highway. One state trooper driving exactly the speed limit in the passing lane. For at least 20 miles, he kept a dozen cars at a safe speed. Not to mention preventing any other unsafe driving. Sure, it only lasted 20 minutes from my point of view, but if he just drove around for a few hours in plain sight, that's a lot of cars driving safely. Sadly, it doesn't generate revenue.
When a cop is doing that pace car thing, the safest thing to do is just get off that road, at least for a few minutes, because all of those drivers will be paying more attention to their legality than to their safety. For 20 miles, that example cop kept a dozen cars bunched up together, afraid to pass.
It is likely that a pace car cop will pull someone over eventually anyway, so don't even spin that wheel of chance.
There are different theories of what "safe driving" is, and the one you subscribe to will affect your opinion of pace car policing.
Spending less money on police and more on things such as social welfare will probably do more for crime than getting them to plant trees or whatever.