I need to applaud the efficiency and moxie of the Zurich / Swiss police service.
In America, the UK, Canada, etc they'd tell you to fill out a report that nobody would ever read, and also advise you it's probably unsafe to go pick it up yourself.
In certain places in America. My county sheriff's office would be more than happy to have something to do that isn't picking up somebody's stray dog. I'm sure this is true for the UK and Canada too.
I called the non-emergency line for the local police department when someone went home with my wallet after I left it on a plane, tracked with an AirTag. 2 hours later an officer said they didn't have probable cause but could knock on the door and ask anyway. I think he basically offered for there to be no trouble if they gave it back, thief claimed they were "going to return it to lost and found", and sure enough I was able to go show my passport at the station and collect it the next day.
There's a recent video of a woman getting arrested, not for the first time, for admitting that she might be praying to herself inside her head, silently.
Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?
Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?
The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.
The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.
Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.
I believe in free access. I also believe those going to get an abortion shouldn’t be impeded by protesters in the immediate vicinity when getting their healthcare.
She was standing alone, across the street, on the curb/grass next to the sidewalk, kind of doing a homer simpson into the bushes.
There were no other people visible, she made no noise.
She didn't impede anyone, and it would have been very difficult to tell she was protesting, if that's in fact what she was doing (I'm not her, so I don't know).
I don't believe in God, so those particulars (or that it was an abortion clinic) aren't important to me. She was arrested for thinking silently to herself.
Do you believe God was listening to the prayers and influencing the people at the abortion clinic? From what I read the lady was standing there and not blocking free access. The law says you may not influence.
Tbf, it's not the case that they are more worried about wrongthink because they're just not worried at all by petty theft - or almost any other instance of micro-criminality.
Would you believe me if I said the police aren't worried about it because even if they put in the effort and catch thieves, they won't be prosecuted very hard. Since 2014, "low-value shoplifting" (under £200) in England and Wales can only be tried in the Magistrate's court and have a maximum sentence of 6 months (now ~1 year since 2024), no matter how many summary offenses you're convicted of. So if you steal under £200 of stuff, hundreds of times over, it's the same outcome. You'll be back on the street very soon.
The government is currently seeking to amend that:
> The bill will remove the perceived immunity granted to shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or less, by repealing Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the legislation that inserted it (section 176 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014).
> This will ensure that all offences are tried as ‘general theft’ (an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years), instead of summarily in the magistrates’ court, unless the defendant elects for jury trial
"Either-way" here means that the offence can be tried either as a summary or indictable offence; an indictable offence can carry much more serious penalties.
I don't disagree, and I would add that the court system is so clogged up that one might not even end up behind bars at all - because by the time the hearing is finally scheduled, the perp might well be on another continent.
Still, the public would appreciate some effort - if anything to actually get some of their stuff back, if not to inconvenience thieves.
It is the case in reality. We are talking about an objectively measurable outcome, and delusional thinking from the propaganda victims does not change it.
Oh for gods sake, can we stop this nonsense mad twitter trope spreading through HN. Having been a cop in the UK, we will happily got nick a robber if they're on the move and tell us where they are, and we don't arrest people for "wrong thought" on twitter unless that happens to be repeatedly messaging your ex and telling her about how you're going to do murder them.
yes, some of my stupid colleagues will once in a blue moon arrest people for twitter nonsense, but that barely ever happens which is why it makes the news and they pretty much never get convicted.
In Canada the police are pretty lazy and it's mostly due to who they hire, and also a LOT of political garbage as it's a federal police force throughout the country in most cases -- run from Ottawa.
Not much real police work happening any more unless you criticize the government or do something they can use as a reason to grow their budgets or otherwise further political agendas.
If there is a video of a crime they do like that...easy! Also they can show it to media for props.
Lazy cops just love centralized 'social' media and the fools who post their lives on it for them to snoop through.
Last year here in Chicago my wife's bike was stolen overnight. It has an airtag hidden in a bell on the handlebars. When we woke up and noticed it was missing, we traced it to a park not too far away. We ran over there and called the Chicago PD who showed up in <10min. We told them a description of the bike and showed where FindMy said it was. They went and retrieved it. Surprisingly happy ending & I was impressed the Chicago PD were so helpful!
That's not a common occurrence, police in Switzerland is highly passive, and the judiciary system is highly complicit with criminals (drug dealers,thieves, white collar crimes etc), and against women (rape victims can be told to close their legs better by judges).
Care to back up your outlandish claims? I live here for 15 years and all you write is completely untrue for everything I ever experienced, saw, heard or read. Or you mean some case from early 70s?
Saying "i am getting my gun and going to retrieve my stuff" guarantees that 6-8 police cars will converge on the location within minutes. Once there, they will apprehend the thief since they are there already.
What? As someone who has worked in emergency services, with a brother-in-law who was a 911 dispatcher in a capital city for 10 years, what dispatching prioritization system puts "violence in progress" lower than "threat of violence", unless the cops are bored and just want to roll their SWAT team at the slightest provocation?
Then you’re fucking comically unlucky, there’s a shooting and some old enemy offs someone at the same address and flee, minutes before the police gets there.
Some pissed off riff-raff family member decides that you look like the killer.
You’d better have a top notch lawyer in your family or prepare to spend lots of money hiring one.
I think the idea isn't to really bring a firearm into the situation, it is just to tell the cops that you are considering doing so.
Which, in your hypothetical "you might get extremely unlucky" scenario, should give you no problem, since you never had a firearm on you in the first place.
If you're really concerned about that you could go to a local bar and call from there. Make sure you have the attention of the bartender while making the call. Easy alibi, the bartender won't forget something like that
I don't think this is true. It's probably true that there's a pervasive belief that a hungry person probably shouldn't be punished for stealing food.
Other kinds of property crime? The costs of enforcement are high compared to the losses caused by individual cases, prioritization is understandably a difficult problem to solve.
It goes far beyond hungry people stealing bread. Look at one of those academic fraud discussions had here on HN over the past week and you'll find people saying that using AI to hallucinate an academic paper isn't a good thing but instead of judging the people who do this we should blame society itself while being understanding of the frauds. The mentality spoken above is pervasive and insidious.
I think those commenters were just on cruise control, applying a pattern of thought with which they are well accustomed, to a scenario which is even more clear cut than usual crime. If it were instead teenagers stealing cars to joyride, we'd get the same cohort pleading for leniency because it was social circumstance that made them do it. It's not just hungry people stealing bread, there's an automatic reflex to defend any criminal as being a victim of society and this only becomes as bizarre as you experienced when the criminals involved are in particularly privileged and trusted positions.
It's not a hard problem to solve, you scale the punishment for the cases you prosecute so high that it makes the expected value of stealing a suitcase negative
My experience with small police departments in the US is that they either don’t have the time or the inclination to deal with small property claims. If you’re a business they’ll be there in 10 minutes, but individuals aren’t afforded the same courtesy. Eventually, citizens realize it’s just not worth the cost or the hassle to report a crime unless it helps with an insurance claim.
My experience with large police departments in the US is that they either don’t have the time or the inclination to deal with small property claims. Some people tried to steal cars (including mine) in my neighborhood in Chicago, we had them on video and they were still in the area and the police didn't do anything. Large police departments also generally won't really do much. Though my friend in Houston did have the police investigate car break ins at his apartment complex but that might be because multiple guns were stolen from cars (so at least there are certain things that will get their attention).
My one and only experience of dealing with the police in the US was when I was visiting NYC. A tourist was being attacked on the subway because he was taking pictures and since we were still at the platform I jumped out and told 2 officers further down the platform what was going on. I expected them to sprint into action, but they could not have cared less and casually strolled along towards the carriage!
In a similar vain I was the first on the scene of a car crash in the UK, where the driver had exited the vehicle through the window (no seat belt) and was bleeding in the road. When the police turned up they casually and slowly walked up the road towards the scene.
It made me wonder if there was a good reason for this, like to control adrenaline, make better decisions, have time to assess the situation. Or if they were just jaded from seeing it a lot.
When working for LUL (London Underground limited) I was told to never run towards an emergency because you risk tripping and falling and then you’re another person that needs help instead of being able to provide the help. So maybe that’s why? I’d walk with urgency though, not casually stroll.
I believe there to be some merit to the notion that it is better for society if many of the generational cycles which lead to crime are broken. Sometimes that involves off-ramps from the road to incarceration.
That said, the policy can be, and certainly is, applied in imbalanced ways when justice is pursued over pragmatism.
I'm sure at some point it's cheaper to pay people to do nothing and have laws enforced, rather than indirectly paying people to do crime by letting stuff get stolen without consequences. Politically it sounds insane, but it would make for a more trusting society.
In America, the UK, Canada, etc they'd tell you to fill out a report that nobody would ever read, and also advise you it's probably unsafe to go pick it up yourself.