It used to be that back when local cops cared about property crime this was standard operating procedure. When I was a kid if you etched a serial number into your bike frame and parts and registered it with the local PD you were practically assured you’d get your bike back when it inevitably showed up at a pawn shop or similar.
It's still like that here in Japan: bikes are all registered with the police and have stickers with their registration numbers. When they're stolen (which is usually done by drunk people wanting a quick ride home, or teenagers using them for joyrides) and recovered, the police will bring the bike back to the registered owner. Usually, the best way to avoid theft is to simply lock your bike's rear wheel so it can't be ridden away easily.
LAPD doesn't. Although I've since learned that supposedly the trick is to call their Spanish non-emergency number since all the operators are bilingual anyways and there's lower call volume.
I'm curious where you live that they don't still care tbh. In my experience police do what they're allowed that will be effective. But if you have a DA who refuses to prosecute people or you pass local laws that make doing their job in a manner that gets results impossible then they tend not to waste their time.
If you've never experienced the indifference of a cop taking a property crime report and the complete lack of follow up, just pick a place and you can look at non-violent crime clearance rate.
I don't think it's something you can lay at the feet of the SF Police Department. I asked Pete McLaughlin, SFPD (retired), why the police don't go after bike thieves more aggressively.
"Our hands are tied," he said. "They [the thieves] know the most we can do is give them a citation, and they'll be out that afternoon."
California has a history of being lenient with non-violent crime, which is appropriate in some cases, but maybe not in others. Maybe leniency is the wrong approach for some of these bike thieves.
But it's complicated. I heard Jerry Brown (former California Governor) talk about how ~10% of the state budget goes to prisons, and he's not comfortable with such a large amount, and I agree--throwing people in jail is expensive!
Asking a cop about why they didn't do their job is like asking a dev how their bug ended up in prod. You'll get an answer, but it will neither sate your desire for improvement, or actually shed light on any systemic issues.
As it happens I experienced exactly this scenario when a homeless person broke into my house while I was asleep, stole a bunch of stuff, and then made off with my car. The cop certainly didn't solve all my problems but they were clear about what they needed to know and what I'd need to do if I wanted to hear back from the city when the person was found. If the police in your area don't care it seems far more likely that they either don't feel allowed to police effectively or they feel their efforts will be wasted.
Where I live they don't even send police for non-injury accidents anymore. Even if there's a hit and run no police get sent.
Property crimes don't matter anymore. When my friends got their catalytic converters stolen the police never even bothered to show up. Taking statements may not get their cats back, but it goes towards building up a large enough case to justify a unit to handle it.
You are correct though. Our DA is a "soft on crime" type. As a result, all forms of criminal behavior have increased dramatically in the last several years.
SF recalled their supposedly "not hard on crime" DA, mostly because he offended the local Asian voters, but the new supposedly "hard on crime" DA in practice doesn't seem to be having much effect. Similarly Chesa didn't oversee Oakland or any other nearby areas but I've still seen people who live there blame things on him.
People generally have no idea how much crime there is. If you asked most people which of NYC and Oklahoma is safer they'd get it wrong whether or not they lived there.
No they recalled him because he was refusing to prosecute anyone for anything because he was mad that his terrorist parents were in jail for being terrorists.
There is a wide gap between liberal “people shouldn’t go to jail because they were on drugs while poor” and “no one should be prosecuted for anything”
Seattle just elected a "hard on crime" Republican prosecutor, who rode in on a wave of promises of prosecuting every misdemeanor, including the backlog (Her opponent was going to prioritize, and drop most of the backlog.)
She got into office, paid a lot of money to legal consultants, and a few months later, announced that she will be... Dropping the backlog of misdemeanors.
She gave up on some of the backlog because the evidence was stale and there were bigger fish to fry. It’s not “giving up” rather declaring bankruptcy so you can focus on more current and serious crimes. This is what happens when you are passed a 3 year backlog from your predecessor.
> She gave up on some of the backlog because the evidence was stale and there were bigger fish to fry.
She attacked that exact same line of reasoning when running for election.
Unsurprisingly, once actually elected, as everyone had said all along, it turned out to be the only way to go forward.
And, of course, the promised reductions in crime are, well, not exactly in any hurry to materialize.
On the one hand, it's a plus that she prioritized good sense over dogma, but on the other hand, it's a little strange how her policies are only bad when its the other party that's advocating for them.
The opponent was advocating for not prosecuting any misdemeanors as a matter of policy. There's a big difference.
Edit because I happen to have the interview bookmarked: Nicole Thomas-Kennedy was the opponent, and in her own words[1], "the goal is to end misdemeanor prosecution."
> She attacked that exact same line of reasoning when running for election.
NTK was a nutter who wanted to stop all prosecution in the city. Ann Davison was a tough on crime realist. Huge difference.
You might be referring to the incumbent who didn't make it through the open primary, but he got us into this mess in the first place. No one was going to give him another shot.
State your sources if you’re taking the position that police solve crime.
If you’re referring to that SF DA that was refusing to prosecute people that was a case where their public platform was to stop over criminalizing but it turned out that their parents were terrorists and they just wanted them out of jail.
Real life isn't a detective show. Cops don't task resources with hunting down your stolen TV. At best, you may get it back when someone tries to sell it to a pawn shop.
More like you get it back when the drug dealer who's thieving client trades it to him in lieu of cash gets busted and the cops comb his apartment looking for anything else they can charge him with and check the serial vs their list.
The trick is that the cops can stop caring and everyone will blame the DA; it's similar to how voters always think "crime" is increasing recently no matter the actual statistics or how safe the area they live in is.
American police are similar to a permanent paramilitary class like Janissaries or samurai. The local governments don't actually control them and as a civilian encountering them means they may kill you for honor violations.
Go ahead and try to find the guidelines, charter, mission, etc. for any municipality policing force. If there is one. Now try and define the actual jurisdiction they have, and the _requirements_ for fulfilling their charge.
How many US citizens younger than 70, without FU $$, do not immediately act like they need to be on their "best behavior" when a Uniformed Officer drives (or less likely, walks/bikes) through? Now add any attribute that makes you stick out from the rest of the community. Does it still feel like they are there to protect you?
Skin color? Religious attire that isn't a suit w/tie or a dress? Hair color? Music? Having way too much fun in a public place while being younger than 30?
