Hey Blake, still think the police have a duty to protect you?

[TSA]

http://gothamist.com/2013/07/26/subway_stabbing_victims_suit_agains.php




Subway Stabbing Victim Can't Sue NYPD For Failing To Save Him


A man who was brutally stabbed by Brooklyn subway slasher Maksim Gelman two years ago had his negligence case against the city dismissed in court yesterday, despite the fact that two transit officers had locked themselves in a motorman's car only a few feet from him at the time of the attack.:lol

Gelman stabbed Joseph Lozito in the face, neck, hands and head on an uptown 3 train in February 2011, after fatally stabbing four people and injuring three others in a 28-hour period. Lozito, a father of two and an avid martial arts fan, was able to tackle Gelman and hold him down, and Gelman was eventually arrested by the transit officers.:lol Lozito sued the city, arguing that the police officers had locked themselves in the conductor's car and failed to come to his aid in time.

The city, meanwhile, claimed that the NYPD had no "special duty" to intervene at the time, and that they were in the motorman's car because they believed Gelman had a gun. And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.

Chan did however, note the heroism of Lozito's actions: "The dismissal of this lawsuit does not lessen Mr. Lozito’s bravery or the pain of his injuries," she wrote in her decision yesterday. "Mr. Lozito heroically maneuvered the knife away from Gelman and subdued him on the subway floor." Gelman was sentenced to 200 years in prison in January 2012; he was sentenced to an additional 25 years for Lozito's stabbing the following month.

[boutons_deux]

amazing

[angrydude]

Not really. It has always been this way.

Unless there is a specific statute which creates one, there is no duty for anyone to rescue anyone.

[boutons_deux]

cops "believed Gelman had a gun"

and the trigger-happy cops didn't have guns? really W T F

[TSA]

Not really. It has always been this way.

Unless there is a specific statute which creates one, there is no duty for anyone to rescue anyone.

It's funny how many people refuse to believe this. The only person with a duty to protect you, is you.

[ElNono]

sup DMC

[TSA]

sup TheGreatYacht

[Blake]

And Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Margaret Chan has sided with the city, noting that there was no evidence the cops were aware Lozito was in danger at the time.*

True or false:

Had there been evidence that the cops were aware of the danger, the court would have allowed the lawsuit against the city to proceed.

[ElNono]

damn found me

[TSA]

True or false:

Had there been evidence that the cops were aware of the danger, the court would have allowed the lawsuit against the city to proceed.

Why were they hiding from a man they believed had a gun if they were not aware of the danger :lol

Want some more cases that prove cops have no duty to protect you?.....................



Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, DeShaney v. Winnebago, Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

[Blake]

Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.

I'm betting you don't answer.

I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.

[TSA]

Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.

I'm betting you don't answer.

I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.

There was evidence of danger, reason why the cops hid and locked themselves up. False.



Go through these case by case as well to find any discrepancies too. Curious to see what you find.

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, DeShaney v. Winnebago, Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

[TSA]

True or false:

Had there been evidence that the cops were aware of the danger, the court would have allowed the lawsuit against the city to proceed.

My mistake Blake. Didn't read this correctly. To answer your question, true, they would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed, and Lozito would have lost because cops have no duty to protect you, as evidenced by all the cases I've shown you.

[Blake]

There was evidence of danger, reason why the cops hid and locked themselves up. False.

A real judge said there was none.

Her opinion goes Tim Duncan on your opinion.




Go through these case by case as well to find any discrepancies too. Curious to see what you find.

Castle Rock v. Gonzalez, DeShaney v. Winnebago, Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982)

Easy bets.

[Blake]

My mistake Blake. Didn't read this correctly. To answer your question, true, they would have allowed the lawsuit to proceed, and Lozito would have lost because cops have no duty to protect you, as evidenced by all the cases I've shown you.

Well there you go.

Since the second part of your post is silly conjecture, to answer your op, yes, since cops are paid to serve and protect, they therefore have a duty to serve and protect.

Another fine thread. :tu

[TSA]

Well there you go.

Since the second part of your post is silly conjecture, to answer your op, yes, since cops are paid to serve and protect, they therefore have a duty to serve and protect.

Another fine thread. :tu

It's obvious you didn't look up a single case.

Warren vs. District of Columbia

"The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."

Do I really need to go case by case to demonstrate that police have no duty to protect?

[TSA]

Oh look Blake, SCOTUS decided to chime in!



Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, 7–2, that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband.

[TSA]

Gone for the day Blake. I'll check back tomorrow to find your court ruling saying police do have a duty to protect. Happy hunting!

[Blake]

It's obvious you didn't look up a single case.

Warren vs. District of Columbia

"The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."

Do I really need to go case by case to demonstrate that police have no duty to protect?

Lmao gunssavelives.net

[TSA]

Lmao gunssavelives.net

Cool website! Thanks for the link.

Still waiting for a court ruling stating police have a duty to protect.

[Th'Pusher]

Cool website! Thanks for the link.

Still waiting for a court ruling stating police have a duty to protect.

Pistol Pete! Why'd you drop the kingsfanwithoutname handle?

[KingsFanWithoutName]

Pusher! Happy hump day!

[Blake]

Cool website! Thanks for the link.

Still waiting for a court ruling stating police have a duty to protect.

I'm not changing my mind based on anything a biased gun nut that likes websites like that says about this.

Kennedy v Ridgefield might be a court case you're looking for though.

But constitutional or legal duties are different than local procedural duties.

we both know "to serve and protect" is a pretty common phrase.

[TSA]

I'm not changing my mind based on anything a biased gun nut that likes websites like that says about this.

Kennedy v Ridgefield might be a court case you're looking for though.

But constitutional or legal duties are different than local procedural duties.

we both know "to serve and protect" is a pretty common phrase.
Since when are SCOTUS rulings those of biased gun nuts?

Kennedy vs Ridgefield has nothing to do with what we are discussing and had you actually read the case you'd understand that. How did you find Kennedy vs Ridgefield relevant to the discussion?

[TSA]

we both know "to serve and protect" is a pretty common phrase.
So is "till death do us part", how'd that work for you?

[That's Funked Up]

So is "till death do us part", how'd that work for you?

So is "that's okay i'm on birth control" You still gotta push em down the stairs to be safe

[Blake]

Since when are SCOTUS rulings those of biased gun nuts?

Kennedy vs Ridgefield has nothing to do with what we are discussing and had you actually read the case you'd understand that. How did you find Kennedy vs Ridgefield relevant to the discussion?

K v R is relevant to your silly discussion because the police failed to protect.

SCOTUS does not define protect. Police departments and local/state law determine the types of duties and it's not hard to define protection in any number of ways. Police departments also have duties to protect if they say it's their duty.

It's a pretty simple concept that you are over complicating.

You need to lay off the gun nut websites, imo.

[Blake]

So is "till death do us part", how'd that work for you?

She didn't live up to the rules of the contract, so I voided the contract.

Worked out just fine in the end.

[Bill_Brasky]

I almost never hear good things about nypd, or cops in general.

To me you get what you pay for. Be cheap about paying cops/teachers, get shit people who don't know what they're doing and aren't very smart.

[TSA]

K v R is relevant to your silly discussion because the police failed to protect.You do understand that case revolved around state created danger doctrine correct? You realize how that does not apply to what I am discussing correct?


SCOTUS does not define protect. Police departments and local/state law determine the types of duties and it's not hard to define protection in any number of ways. Police departments also have duties to protect if they say it's their duty.SCOTUS does define protect, and if you'd take to time to look over the cases I presented you would see that time and time again they have ruled that the police have no duty to protect, unless they make the situation worse aka state created danger doctrine.


It's a pretty simple concept that you are over complicating.

You need to lay off the gun nut websites, imo.

It's a pretty simple concept you refuse to accept just because you've seen a police car with "to protect and serve" on the side.

[Blake]

Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.

One example, which is enough for me, is that cops protect the community by getting drunk drivers off the road. It's their duty to get drunks off the road because states and municipalities have made it their duty.

Your thread title has now been fully answered.

[boutons_deux]

Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.

One example, which is enough for me, is that cops protect the community by getting drunk drivers off the road.

Your thread title has now been fully answered.

Cops do a lot of stuff where's there's no risk for them, like shoot unarmed, non-threatening people in the back as they run away, or making quota by "frying" black and browns with bogus mj possession, intent to sell.

[TSA]

Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.

One example, which is enough for me, is that cops protect the community by getting drunk drivers off the road. It's their duty to get drunks off the road because states and municipalities have made it their duty.

Your thread title has now been fully answered.You've got 25,000+ posts arguing trivial crap, why stop now? I agree with you on the drunk driver aspect. Do cops protect you from robbery, rape, muggings, murder etc?

[Blake]

You've got 25,000+ posts arguing trivial crap, why stop now?

Because I know I'm right


I agree with you on the drunk driver aspect. Do cops protect you from robbery, rape, muggings, murder etc?

To a degree they should, they do, they have and they will.

But for gun nuts like you, it's not enough and you need a gun. I get it.

For me, I don't need a gun next to my pillow to sleep soundly at night. But if it works for you, knock yourself out.

[TSA]

Because I know I'm right You've shown absolutely nothing to prove you're right and have in fact only presented one court case that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, which you failed to realize before bringing it up.




To a degree they should, they do, they have and they will.Please explain to me how police prevent and protect women from being raped. Same with robberies, muggings, and murders....explain to me how the police protect me from these crimes.

You live in a fantasy world where you think police prevent crime when in reality they respond to crime.

[Blake]

You've shown absolutely nothing to prove you're right and have in fact only presented one court case that had nothing to do with the topic at hand, which you failed to realize before bringing it up.

You just said you agreed that I was right.

You should make up your mind, tbh.



Please explain to me how police prevent and protect women from being raped. Same with robberies, muggings, and murders....explain to me how the police protect me from these crimes.

You live in a fantasy world where you think police prevent crime when in reality they respond to crime.

you're way off on a deep end. There's a middle ground of realistic expectations of police protection.

It's currently where I'm standing. I encourage you to join me.

[TSA]

You just said you agreed that I was right.:lol and where did this occur?





you're way off on a deep end. There's a middle ground of realistic expectations of police protection.

What is a realistic expectation of a police officer's duty to protect a woman from rape? And how does said police officer go about fulfilling this duty?

[Th'Pusher]

Please explain to me how police prevent and protect women from being raped. Same with robberies, muggings, and murders....explain to me how the police protect me from these crimes.

You live in a fantasy world where you think police prevent crime when in reality they respond to crime.

THE meanest streets of Kent are to be found in little pink boxes. Or at least they are if you look at them through the crime-prediction software produced by an American company called PredPol. Places in the county east of London where a crime is likely on a given day show up on PredPol’s maps highlighted by pink squares 150 metres on a side. The predictions can be eerily good, according to Mark Johnson, a police analyst: “In the first box I visited we found a carving knife just lying in the road.”


PredPol is one of a range of tools using better data, more finely crunched, to predict crime. They seem to promise better law-enforcement. But they also bring worries about privacy, and of justice systems run by machines not people.


Criminal offences, like infectious disease, form patterns in time and space. A burglary in a placid neighbourhood represents a heightened risk to surrounding properties; the threat shrinks swiftly if no further offences take place. These patterns have spawned a handful of predictive products which seem to offer real insight. During a four-month trial in Kent, 8.5% of all street crime occurred within PredPol’s pink boxes, with plenty more next door to them; predictions from police analysts scored only 5%. An earlier trial in Los Angeles saw the machine score 6% compared with human analysts’ 3%.

Intelligent policing can convert these modest gains into significant reductions in crime. Cops working with predictive systems respond to call-outs as usual, but when they are free they return to the spots which the computer suggests. Officers may talk to locals or report problems, like broken lights or unsecured properties, that could encourage crime. Within six months of introducing predictive techniques in the Foothill area of Los Angeles, in late 2011, property crimes had fallen 12% compared with the previous year; in neighbouring districts they rose 0.5% (see chart). Police in Trafford, a suburb of Manchester in north-west England, say relatively simple and sometimes cost-free techniques, including routing police driving instructors through high-risk areas, helped them cut burglaries 26.6% in the year to May 2011, compared with a decline of 9.8% in the rest of the city.


For now, the predictive approach works best against burglary and thefts of vehicles or their contents. These common crimes provide plenty of historical data to chew on. But adding extra types of information, such as details of road networks, can fine-tune forecasts further. Offenders like places where vulnerable targets are simple to spot, access is easy and getaways speedy, says Shane Johnson, a criminologist at University College London. Systems devised by IBM, a technology firm, watch how big local events, proximity to payday and the weather affect the frequency and location of lawbreaking. “Muggers don’t like getting wet,” says Ron Fellows, IBM’s expert. Jeff Brantingham of PredPol thinks that finding speedy ways to ingest crime reports is more important than adding data sets. Timelier updates would allow PredPol to whirr out crime predictions constantly, rather than once per shift. Mr Fellows enthuses about sensors that detect gunshots (already installed in several American cities) and smart CCTV cameras that recognise when those in their gaze are acting suspiciously. He promises squad cars directed by computers, not just control centres, which could continually calculate the most useful patrol routes.


Minority report
Predicting and forestalling crime does not solve its root causes. Positioning police in hotspots discourages opportunistic wrongdoing, but may encourage other criminals to move to less likely areas. And while data-crunching may make it easier to identify high-risk offenders—about half of American states use some form of statistical analysis to decide when to parole prisoners—there is little that it can do to change their motivation.
Misuse and overuse of data can amplify biases. It matters, for example, whether software crunches reports of crimes or arrests; if the latter, police activity risks creating a vicious circle. And report-based systems may favour rich neighbourhoods which turn to the police more readily rather than poor ones where crime is rife. Crimes such as burglary and car theft are more consistently reported than drug dealing or gang-related violence.
But mathematical models might make policing more equitable by curbing prejudice. A suspicious individual’s presence in a “high-crime area” is among the criteria American police may use to determine whether a search is acceptable: a more rigorous definition of those locations will stop that justification being abused. Detailed analysis of a convict’s personal history may be a fairer reason to refuse parole than similarity to a stereotype.

Technology may also sharpen debates about what people want from their justice systems, and what costs they are willing to accept. For example, software developed by Richard Berk, an American statistician, which is credited with helping to cut recidivism among paroled prisoners in Philadelphia, requires the authorities to define in advance their willingness to risk being overly tough on low-risk offenders or to under-supervise nasty ones.
This sort of transparency about what goes on in predictive systems, and what their assumptions are, may also be a partial solution to worries voiced by Andrew Ferguson, a law professor in Washington, DC. Mr Ferguson fears that judges and juries could come to place too much credence in the accuracy of crime prediction tools, jeopardising justice. If transparency is a good counter to this, it will be important to preserve it as prediction becomes a bigger business and gets further from its academic roots.


It is as prediction moves from places to people that it becomes most vexed. Police attending domestic disturbances in Los Angeles have tried out a checklist, derived from much data-crunching, to determine whether the incident presages violence. Mr Berk is working with authorities in Maryland to predict which of the families known to social services are likely to inflict the worst abuses on their children. Federal officials aim to forecast potential health and safety infringements. America’s Department of Homeland Security is seeking to perfect software which scans crowds or airport queues to detect nervous behaviour such as fidgeting, shallow breathing and signs of a swift heartbeat.
So far, predictions have mostly been made about people who have already had contact with the justice system—such as convicted criminals. The growth of social media provides a lot of crunchable data on everyone else. Firms that once specialised in helping executives measure how web users feel about their brands now supply products that warn police when civil unrest approaches, and help them closely follow crises. Cops in California admit to trawling social networks for early warnings of wild parties. ECM Universe, an American firm, offers software that crawls sites “rife with extremism” to identify people who deserve closer attention.


The legal limits on using social media to fish out likely wrongdoers, or create files on them, are contested. Most laws governing police investigations pre-date social networking, and some forces assert that all information posted to public forums is fair game. But Jamie Bartlett of Demos, a British think-tank, says citizens and police forces need clearer guidance about how to map physical-world privacy rights onto online spaces. He thinks gathering information about how someone behaves on social sites ought to require the same clearance needed to monitor them doggedly in public places. Officers who register anonymously or pseudonymously to read content, or send web crawlers to trawl sites against their owner’s wishes, would require yet more supervision.


Identifying true villains among the oddballs and loudmouths found by social-media searches is tricky. Most police efforts are embryonic. Evgeny Morozov, an academic and technology writer, thinks the privacy-conscious have more to fear from crime detection algorithms cooked up by social networks themselves. Some of those firms already alert investigators when they suspect users of soliciting minors. Unlike the cops they employ clever coders who can process private messages and other data that police may access only with a court order.


These projects make life difficult for many criminals. But smart ones use the internet to make predictions of their own. Nearly 80% of previously arrested burglars surveyed in 2011 by Friedland, a security firm, said information drawn from social media helps thieves plan coups. Status updates and photographs generate handy lists of tempting properties with absent owners. It does not take a crystal ball to work out what comes next.

[Blake]

:lol and where did this occur?



I agree with you on the drunk driver aspect.

[TSA]

Yes, I agreed with you on one form. Still waiting for you to answer how police protect women from rape, or any other crimes in general. How do they protect you?

[Blake]

What is a realistic expectation of a police officer's duty to protect a woman from rape? And how does said police officer go about fulfilling this duty?

If it's happening in plain sight.

Behind closed doors would require warrants or procedure for emergency entry. Like pretty much any crime.

again, you should lay off those gun nut websites and do some reading.

[Blake]

Yes, I agreed with you on one form. Still waiting for you to answer how police protect women from rape, or any other crimes in general. How do they protect you?

I never said they protected me personally/directly from any and all crimes.

That's you still coming from way out from the deep end.

[TSA]

If it's happening in plain sight.

Behind closed doors would require warrants or procedure for emergency entry. Like pretty much any crime.

again, you should lay off those gun nut websites and do some reading.

Rapes rarely happen in plain sight, are you now conceding that police do not do much good in protecting women and preventing rape?

[TSA]

THE meanest streets of Kent are to be found in little pink boxes. Or at least they are if you look at them through the crime-prediction software produced by an American company called PredPol. Places in the county east of London where a crime is likely on a given day show up on PredPol’s maps highlighted by pink squares 150 metres on a side. The predictions can be eerily good, according to Mark Johnson, a police analyst: “In the first box I visited we found a carving knife just lying in the road.”


PredPol is one of a range of tools using better data, more finely crunched, to predict crime. They seem to promise better law-enforcement. But they also bring worries about privacy, and of justice systems run by machines not people.


Criminal offences, like infectious disease, form patterns in time and space. A burglary in a placid neighbourhood represents a heightened risk to surrounding properties; the threat shrinks swiftly if no further offences take place. These patterns have spawned a handful of predictive products which seem to offer real insight. During a four-month trial in Kent, 8.5% of all street crime occurred within PredPol’s pink boxes, with plenty more next door to them; predictions from police analysts scored only 5%. An earlier trial in Los Angeles saw the machine score 6% compared with human analysts’ 3%.
Intelligent policing can convert these modest gains into significant reductions in crime. Cops working with predictive systems respond to call-outs as usual, but when they are free they return to the spots which the computer suggests. Officers may talk to locals or report problems, like broken lights or unsecured properties, that could encourage crime. Within six months of introducing predictive techniques in the Foothill area of Los Angeles, in late 2011, property crimes had fallen 12% compared with the previous year; in neighbouring districts they rose 0.5% (see chart). Police in Trafford, a suburb of Manchester in north-west England, say relatively simple and sometimes cost-free techniques, including routing police driving instructors through high-risk areas, helped them cut burglaries 26.6% in the year to May 2011, compared with a decline of 9.8% in the rest of the city.


For now, the predictive approach works best against burglary and thefts of vehicles or their contents. These common crimes provide plenty of historical data to chew on. But adding extra types of information, such as details of road networks, can fine-tune forecasts further. Offenders like places where vulnerable targets are simple to spot, access is easy and getaways speedy, says Shane Johnson, a criminologist at University College London. Systems devised by IBM, a technology firm, watch how big local events, proximity to payday and the weather affect the frequency and location of lawbreaking. “Muggers don’t like getting wet,” says Ron Fellows, IBM’s expert. Jeff Brantingham of PredPol thinks that finding speedy ways to ingest crime reports is more important than adding data sets. Timelier updates would allow PredPol to whirr out crime predictions constantly, rather than once per shift. Mr Fellows enthuses about sensors that detect gunshots (already installed in several American cities) and smart CCTV cameras that recognise when those in their gaze are acting suspiciously. He promises squad cars directed by computers, not just control centres, which could continually calculate the most useful patrol routes.


Minority report
Predicting and forestalling crime does not solve its root causes. Positioning police in hotspots discourages opportunistic wrongdoing, but may encourage other criminals to move to less likely areas. And while data-crunching may make it easier to identify high-risk offenders—about half of American states use some form of statistical analysis to decide when to parole prisoners—there is little that it can do to change their motivation.
Misuse and overuse of data can amplify biases. It matters, for example, whether software crunches reports of crimes or arrests; if the latter, police activity risks creating a vicious circle. And report-based systems may favour rich neighbourhoods which turn to the police more readily rather than poor ones where crime is rife. Crimes such as burglary and car theft are more consistently reported than drug dealing or gang-related violence.
But mathematical models might make policing more equitable by curbing prejudice. A suspicious individual’s presence in a “high-crime area” is among the criteria American police may use to determine whether a search is acceptable: a more rigorous definition of those locations will stop that justification being abused. Detailed analysis of a convict’s personal history may be a fairer reason to refuse parole than similarity to a stereotype.

Technology may also sharpen debates about what people want from their justice systems, and what costs they are willing to accept. For example, software developed by Richard Berk, an American statistician, which is credited with helping to cut recidivism among paroled prisoners in Philadelphia, requires the authorities to define in advance their willingness to risk being overly tough on low-risk offenders or to under-supervise nasty ones.
This sort of transparency about what goes on in predictive systems, and what their assumptions are, may also be a partial solution to worries voiced by Andrew Ferguson, a law professor in Washington, DC. Mr Ferguson fears that judges and juries could come to place too much credence in the accuracy of crime prediction tools, jeopardising justice. If transparency is a good counter to this, it will be important to preserve it as prediction becomes a bigger business and gets further from its academic roots.


It is as prediction moves from places to people that it becomes most vexed. Police attending domestic disturbances in Los Angeles have tried out a checklist, derived from much data-crunching, to determine whether the incident presages violence. Mr Berk is working with authorities in Maryland to predict which of the families known to social services are likely to inflict the worst abuses on their children. Federal officials aim to forecast potential health and safety infringements. America’s Department of Homeland Security is seeking to perfect software which scans crowds or airport queues to detect nervous behaviour such as fidgeting, shallow breathing and signs of a swift heartbeat.
So far, predictions have mostly been made about people who have already had contact with the justice system—such as convicted criminals. The growth of social media provides a lot of crunchable data on everyone else. Firms that once specialised in helping executives measure how web users feel about their brands now supply products that warn police when civil unrest approaches, and help them closely follow crises. Cops in California admit to trawling social networks for early warnings of wild parties. ECM Universe, an American firm, offers software that crawls sites “rife with extremism” to identify people who deserve closer attention.


The legal limits on using social media to fish out likely wrongdoers, or create files on them, are contested. Most laws governing police investigations pre-date social networking, and some forces assert that all information posted to public forums is fair game. But Jamie Bartlett of Demos, a British think-tank, says citizens and police forces need clearer guidance about how to map physical-world privacy rights onto online spaces. He thinks gathering information about how someone behaves on social sites ought to require the same clearance needed to monitor them doggedly in public places. Officers who register anonymously or pseudonymously to read content, or send web crawlers to trawl sites against their owner’s wishes, would require yet more supervision.


Identifying true villains among the oddballs and loudmouths found by social-media searches is tricky. Most police efforts are embryonic. Evgeny Morozov, an academic and technology writer, thinks the privacy-conscious have more to fear from crime detection algorithms cooked up by social networks themselves. Some of those firms already alert investigators when they suspect users of soliciting minors. Unlike the cops they employ clever coders who can process private messages and other data that police may access only with a court order.


These projects make life difficult for many criminals. But smart ones use the internet to make predictions of their own. Nearly 80% of previously arrested burglars surveyed in 2011 by Friedland, a security firm, said information drawn from social media helps thieves plan coups. Status updates and photographs generate handy lists of tempting properties with absent owners. It does not take a crystal ball to work out what comes next.


Interesting technology but the numbers aren't that impressive.

[TSA]

again, you should lay off those gun nut websites and do some reading.

Do some reading? :lol
Take your own advice, I've provided plenty of cases that prove you wrong and you refuse to acknowledge them.
Prove to me that the police have a duty to protect me and I will never post on this site again.

[Blake]

Rapes rarely happen in plain sight, are you now conceding that police do not do much good in protecting women and preventing rape?

I never argued otherwise regarding rape.

[Blake]

Do some reading? :lol
Take your own advice, I've provided plenty of cases that prove you wrong and you refuse to acknowledge them.
Prove to me that the police have a duty to protect me and I will never post on this site again.

I made my case rather easily. Stay or go as you please.

[TSA]

I made my case rather easily.

You haven't made shit for a case and you know it. It's a one sided bet with nothing for you to lose, why not prove me wrong?

[Blake]

You haven't made shit for a case and you know it. It's a one sided bet with nothing for you to lose, why not prove me wrong?

Actually I proved it incredibly easy and you assisted. I'm not one for ELE bets.

start a third party poll to determine whose right/wrong here if you're that insecure about it.

[TSA]

Actually I proved it incredibly easy and you assisted. I'm not one for ELE bets.

start a third party poll to determine whose right/wrong here if you're that insecure about it.
You're so full of shit and you know it and so does anyone reading this thread. Post what you think you've proven please. Post your proof that police have a duty to protect you.

[Blake]

You're so full of shit and you know it and so does anyone reading this thread. Post what you think you've proven please. Post your proof that police have a duty to protect you.

I already posted they have a duty to protect the community against drunk drivers. You agreed.

Damn you're slow and stupid.

[TSA]

I already posted they have a duty to protect the community against drunk drivers. You agreed.

Damn you're slow and stupid.

It's amusing watching you grasping for straws.

[TSA]

I see Fuzzy has stopped by, and as much as he despises me he will unfortunately have to agree with me here. The police have no duty to protect you and can not be held liable for such. (State created danger doctrine does not count, as Blake just learned today)

[TSA]

Fuzzy ran in here with his non-semi-automatic guns of empirical data blazing and left without saying a word, his silence speaks volumes.

[Blake]

I see Fuzzy has stopped by, and as much as he despises me he will unfortunately have to agree with me here. The police have no duty to protect you and can not be held liable for such. (State created danger doctrine does not count, as Blake just learned today)

Lol doesn't count.

it's amusing to watch you make up your own rules so you can win the internets.

[TSA]

Speaking of winning the internets.................


Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.

And yet you're still here



True or False: Blake understands the state-created danger doctrine

[Blake]

Speaking of winning the internets.................



And yet you're still here



True or False: Blake understands the state-created danger doctrine

I'm not really arguing anything here any more. Watching you get all hissy about this is why I'm still here.

I understand the state created doctrine pretty well, imo. Post a third party poll so we can all vote on if that's true or false, imo.

[TSA]

Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.

I'm betting you don't answer.

I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.

[Blake]

True or False: Blake understands the state-created danger doctrine




I understand the state created doctrine pretty well, imo.


Yeah, i don't see a true or false in there.

Damn you're slow and stupid.

[Blake]

I'm also betting you move the goalposts again.

Make it $1000 and you have a bet.

[TSA]

I understand the state created doctrine pretty well, imo.
Since you claim to understand it well, explain how is it relevant to our discussion.

[Blake]

Since you claim to understand it well, explain how is it relevant to our discussion.

You're claiming there is no federally mandated duty for police officers to protect.

State-created danger is an exception to that general rule.

I.e., In certain situations, police do have a federally mandated duty to protect.

Slooooooooooooooooooo


































































































oooooow.

[TSA]

You're claiming there is no federally mandated duty for police officers to protect.

State-created danger is an exception to that general rule.


I see you've finally accepted that there is no duty for police officers to protect you.

[Blake]

I see you've finally accepted that there is no duty for police officers to protect you.

You've got horrible reading comprehension skills.

[TSA]

In certain situations, police do have a federally mandated duty to protect.


Here are your two conditions:

First, a government has a duty to protect a person if he/she is physically in government custody. Second, a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.

Are you going to sit here and say you were right because there is a .1% chance of the police being required by law to protect you?

[TSA]

You've dug your own hole, it's been nice helping you along.

[Blake]

Here are your two conditions:

First, a government has a duty to protect a person if he/she is physically in government custody. Second, a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.

Are you going to sit here and say you were right because there is a .1% chance of the police being required by law to protect you?

.1% > 0 so yes, I'm right.

And lawsuits have been won because that .1% chance you made up actually hit.

And that's not really why I said they have a duty to begin with. I clearly stated why, but whatever reading disorder you have kept you from understanding it.

[TSA]

.1% > 0 so yes, I'm right.


:lmao

[Blake]

You're unintelligent.

[TSA]

Here now is the final version of your argument:


In certain situations, police do have a federally mandated duty to protect. First, a government has a duty to protect a person if he/she is physically in government custody. Second, a government must provide protection if the government is responsible for creating the danger.

The possibility of either of these happening and requiring a duty for police to protect is EXTREMELY rare, while ALL other crimes committed against citizens fall outside these conditions and require no duty to protect.

And yet..........


Yeah, sorry, I just don't care enough to argue this trivial crap.


:lmao

Thanks for playing Blake.

[Blake]

Oh look, I argued some after I said I didn't care enough to argue. Golly you're a good at trolling.

Too bad you're too unintelligent to have a good conversation with.

[TSA]

Intelligent enough to know the police have no duty to protect me :lmao