1. When you combine the amount of car theft in Puget Sound with the rate of this region's bank robberies, you have the "perfect storm" of crime. Now add a plethora of meth heads dying for a fix and watch what happens in 2007.

Posted by: Walters on January 10, 2007 10:25 AM

2. it's not a problem until some legislator's kid or(or defense lawyer's spouse/lover) gets a bullet in the gut in a bank robber's crossfire.

then, watch the hang 'em high shouts in Olympia and emergency (fast) rulemaking and effective tough laws.

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 10:32 AM

3. The size of the Seattle police force, and its presence on the streets, is not sufficient.

For a small fraction of the amount of our tax dollars that could be wasted on the tunnel and other viaduct replacement schemes, the police force could be substantially strengthened.

It's a matter of priorities. We can prioritize public safety and target Seattle's disproportionate crime problem. That's better for families, better for the business climate, and better as a net savings for the taxpayers.

Posted by: Steve Beren on January 10, 2007 10:36 AM

4. The solution is easy - instead of incarcerating bank robbers, hang them.

Posted by: H Moul on January 10, 2007 10:39 AM

5. No new prisons? Somehow...somewhere...there's a really good joke lurking there about protecting the voter base...

I dunno...perhaps he doesn't want to be alone on holidays.

If you think about it, the desire to not build prison capacity has the same mindset as not building road capacity. It's the use of end game capacity issues to force unpopular agenda items.

Posted by: scott158 on January 10, 2007 10:41 AM

6. Stefan, both you and the FBI agent make serious logical errors.

The FBI agent quoted in the Sea Times blames the robberies on homelessness. But Seattle's homelessness problem isn't 4th in the nation. (It is notoriously difficult to compare homelessness between cities because counting methodologies are flawed and inconsistent, but I don't think we're close to 4th.) Also, I doubt that homelessness (whose causes include poverty, substance abuse, and mental illness) causes someone to rob a bank (which has some of the same causes but also, of course, requires criminality).

On the other hand, you imply that lack of prisons causes bank robberies. Do we have fewer prisons than other cities? Do we give shorter sentences to bank robbers than other cities, and if so, is that due to a lack of prisons?

Without answering questions like these, your post has all the logical power of a Ryan Blethen column. (Although yours is better written.)

Posted by: Bruce on January 10, 2007 10:42 AM

7. Bank robberies? Car thefts? Pishaw. The police are too busy with the all important task of busting prostitutes on craigslist or strippers giving lap dances. That's where the real crime is after all.

Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 10:49 AM

8. it's nobody's fault. a vast right-wing crime-reporting conspiracy. now, how can we tie it in to "it's for the children?"

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 11:05 AM

9. Jimmie, Remember, all those inmates were children once. Perhaps, perhaps if only they had been more progressive, they could have left a life of crime and become baristas.

Posted by: Doc-T on January 10, 2007 11:08 AM

10. "they could have left a life of crime and become baristas"

Or members of the bar. Splitting hairs, I know...

Posted by: scott158 on January 10, 2007 12:13 PM

11. scott158 - I take exception to that comment. It is so exclusive of the folically challenged and should be considered hate speech!

Ooops, sorry. A bit OT.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 12:21 PM

12. o.k. liberals--lovers of sharia law and its followers?--want diversity? chop the robbers' hands!

Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on January 10, 2007 12:26 PM

13. Always commit your crimes in a liberal city. Less chance some citizen will be armed.

Posted by: Huey on January 10, 2007 12:48 PM

14. Given all the banks, which includes savings and loans, credit unions, and in-store banking facilities, how can any number of patrol officers have an impact on bank robberies? Patrol officers, regardless how many there are, serve as responders. Always have, always will. There are more banks in this area than all the combined officers on patrol on a single watch now, or even with the most aggressive police staffing goals. Given the fact that most convicted criminals are not incarcerated for life how can more prisons prevent bank robberies? Given the recent evidence of parole practices in Western Washington how can parole prevent bank robberies?

Bank robberies are not unique to Seattle. It's Western Washington. That's a lot of financial facilities within a lot of police and sheriff jurisdictions along with the FBI. Seattle PD as well as other local agencies expend a lot of talented resources jointly with the FBI in dealing with robberies. Much of that effort is given to "after the fact" investigations. Most of that work is covert so don't look for a patrol car sitting in front of your local bank branch warding off the bad guys.

Banks are robbed, as Willie Sutton said, "Because that's where the money is." That being the case banks have the major responsibility in dealing with robberies - before they occur. How many banks have you seen in this area with bullet-resistant clear security screening between tellers and customers? There are some but not many. One reason is that in the banking world security is actually a low priority. The banking business is market driven. Are security screens costly? You bet. Bankers don't like to spend money - they like to receive it. Also in Seattle security screens are probably deemed "harsh" and "sending an inappropriate message." Just not "the Seattle way."

Reactive response to crime is necessary. Crime will never go away. Proactive response to crime - preventing it - is equally, if not more, necessary.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 10, 2007 01:19 PM

15. At first I thought you were talking about the 'bank' robbery of my savings account by this legislature.

Posted by: swatter on January 10, 2007 01:25 PM

16. Tyler, you don't think a greater police "presence" on the street would prevent bank robberies and car thefts? I do. I'm no bank robber, but if I was planning one, I surely wouldn't pick a bank where police are hanging around frequently in that neighborhood.

Start by reassigning or retraining every cop that's wasting time on prostitution and strip clubs.

Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 01:33 PM

17. Tyler Durden:

blame the victim.

Women that is where the p@#@ is. It's their fault rape occurs. If all women would just wear burkas and iron chastity belts...

Posted by: nobody on January 10, 2007 01:40 PM

18. TD #13 "Most of that work is covert so don't look for a patrol car sitting in front of your local bank branch warding off the bad guys."

I find it interesting how all this can be rationalized and considered OK as there is "covert" work going on. Its funny how Bush, who really does have some covert activities, no matter how hard the NYT attempts to prevent that, (and needs them so much more than Seattle police) but is never given the benefit of the doubt on activities in war.

Posted by: Right said Fred on January 10, 2007 01:44 PM

19. Palouse: you don't think a greater police "presence" on the street would prevent bank robberies and car thefts? I do. I'm no bank robber, but if I was planning one, I surely wouldn't pick a bank where police are hanging around frequently in that neighborhood.

So what would you do to protect the banks the patrol officers aren't "hanging around?" And since you brought up car thefts how will police address that if they're "hanging around" banks?

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 10, 2007 02:59 PM

20. Police presence does not mean stationing them at a bank. It means patroling neighborhoods. Those are neighborhoods with banks and cars. Police don't have to be doing anything other than making their presence known by driving around to prevent crime.

Posted by: Palouse on January 10, 2007 03:19 PM

21. Nobody: "blame the victim"

You're absolutely right. How mean-spirited of me. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea culpa. It's never the victim's responsibility. Just like the woman who left her keys in her unlocked car a few days ago. She went into a shop for ten minutes and her car was stolen.

Definitely no responsibility on her part because:

There was no multi-lingual warning from the manufacturer affixed to her dashboard and keys warning her that her car could be stolen if she left it unlocked with the keys in it.

There were no SPD patrol cars parked behind her car to prevent the theft.

The city hadn't posted a sign at her immediate parking space warning that her specific car might be stolen if she left it unlocked with the keys in it.

The governor hadn't been running ads warning her that her car might be stolen if left unlocked with the keys in it.

The shopkeeper didn't tell her car might be stolen or take care of her quickly enough.

Car thieves were out on bail awaiting trial that week.

Car thieves had been paroled that week.

And that patrolman who did respond. "WHY WASN'T HE THERE EARLIER TO STOP IT!" is still ringing in his incompetent ears.

Yep, it's society's fault - not her's. Damn society - never expends enough resources taking care of the "little guy" or "gal" in this instance.

Posted by: Tyler Durden on January 10, 2007 03:41 PM

22. Hey how do you think the people of Seattle are going to pay there taxes if we put a stop to the bank robberies

Posted by: DA on January 10, 2007 03:53 PM

23. 1. Nobody now knows how to prevent people from becoming thieves, and no one ever has known this.

2. Theives have been around since history started (refer to the 10 commandments or Hamurabi's code) and will be around until it ends, because it is human nature to covet other people's stuff. Why some of us learn to resist this impulse and some don't is interesting but speculative.

3. Our society will not tolerate measures which might reduce the likelihood of people growing up unable to restrain their theiving impulses such as forbidding convicted theives from breeding, taking their children away from them.

3. Wolves were domesticated into dogs as people gave up a nomadic way of life and settled down into agricultural villages, likely for the purpose of guarding their stuff . That is why dogs bark at strangers. Wolves do not bark.

4. It is illogical to believe that punishment does not deter future theft - even if all potential future theives were completely undeterred by the chance of being caught and punished, the incarcerated (or executed or hand amputated) thief will certainly be detered from repeating his crime.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 11:12 AM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?