I often transport tools in the trunk of my car. Last night someone broke into my car and ripped out the back seat to get into the trunk. I went to the police and they said that they would NOT fingerprint. This means that they will do absolutely nothing. I have flat chrome handles that likely would have fingerprints. There is metal behind the back seat cushion that the thief likely braced against. What are my options here? When I went down to make a report (because they would not come to me) I didn't have proof of insurance with me (I wasn't told to bring it) and they wouldn't even make out a report without it. I am outraged.
If I somehow took the fingerprints myself (graphite and scotch tape?) is there any way to match those prints up with a human being? Would the police run them for me if I paid them?
This is not a "lack of funds" problem. This is a priorities problem. There are so many funds available that each tenant family I have averages receiving ~$1000/mo from the government. There are so many police that I saw five of them on my way back from lunch today - but none were fingerprinting. They focus on raising funds because they get to keep the money they raise. Money raised by the police should NOT go to the police. They can't handle the honor system.
Agreed. I've been through the house break-in experience myself. In one case, in an apartment, it was obvious the door had been kicked in. If I had had the time and resources I could have identified the make of boot from the tread marks on the door. The *detective* who showed up proceeded to go through a long explanation of how the "actors" broke in using a jimmy. Sheesh! I do, however, respectfully disagree with you about what cops do - the cops everywhere I've lived are only interested in ticketing speeders and setting up drunk-driver stops for what should be illegal searches. Cheers!
You don't know what you are talking about. You are not even required to have insurance on a car-- I own five cars and I only have insurance on three. You are only required to have insurance for a car which is on the public streets. Many people have a car which they currently don't drive.
Much as I'd like to blame everything on the BCF*, this long predates Bush, neo-cons, modern "conservatism", Reagan, even Nixon. I'm old enough to remember such incidents in the 1960s, with Johnson and Kennedy in the WH. My parents told of such things under Eisenhower, Truman and Roosevelt. One instance of true bi-partisan cooperation ;-). So, though Bush has indeed cut funding to the states and the Republicans have enacted unfunded mandates for state and local law enforcement, the OP's particular problem is not of their doing.
It costs the tax payers, including me, less than the $100's in damage just ONE breakin by this criminal costs. Who knows how many times she has done this and how many more times she will. Do you think that this type of criminal is going to have an attack of conscience until they have either done 1000's if not 10's of 1000's of dollars in damage and theft or been caught?
A good print will exactly match one person. If there are multipe breakins they can probably match up the fingerprints even if the prints lifted from one of the breakins produces multiple possible matches.
I suggest they make an arrest based upon an exact match. I suggest they make an arrest for purposes of interrogation for multiple possible matches where one person has a history. They might also use hair, etc where there are multiple possible print matches but a single suspect seems more likely to have committed the crime based upon past record.
The police don't protect houses or cars -- what "valuable property" should they protect? Yes, people have broken in and the police have even refused to come out to look!
Most of the time they DO NOT do a good job. Most of the time they do NO JOB. I am glad to hear that 15 years ago they caught someone when you told them who did it and another person driving with their lights out. The police here have not even managed that for me.
You "weren't told to bring it"? Your proof of insurance should ALWAYS be in the car, dipshit. Or is it really that you don't even have insurance? It's goddam morons like you that cost the rest of us extra money for car insurance.
Fuck off and die, idiot. If I was the cop you reported that to, you would have been arrested for being stupid, and not having insurance.
I think you need to call CSI. You have been watching too much TV. Police can do some amazing things, but they cannot work miracles. And they have to stay within the laws. Many evidentiary findings can be explained by a smart lawyer. Fingerprints on your car can be explained. What if I just touch your car at the mall one day when I lean over to pick up a quarter?
The real world doesn't work like you think it does. Educate yourself so that you can protect yourself. Attend open houses at your local police departments that deal with crime prevention. They will identify areas you are weak in, and give you good information on how to protect your property. For example, an engraver to mark your tools would cost you about fifteen bucks. Don't want to spend fifteen bucks and a couple of hours marking your stuff? Oh, well ............
If people really dislike the police so much, why is it that the first call they make when they have a problem is the police?
I never understood that.
Police don't refuse to do their job. They just refuse to do stupid things people ask them to do that are not within the law. Steve, who has several POs in his family and circle of friends, and who has been a coroner's investigator.
The problem with fingerprinting is that it requires a large amount of expertise and effort (usually it requires a forensic officer, not just a regular cop) and rarely produces results. After all, the only time they'll get a match is if those prints are already in the database, and even then they _might_ get a match.
The bottom line is that unless the crime is particularly egregious, it usually isn't worth it to fingerprint, because only very rarely will the fingerprinting result in an arrest and conviction.
Fill out the police report. Make an insurance claim. That's why you have insurance, isn't it? Even if the cops catch the thief, you still need to make the insurance claim (since your tools have probably been fenced by that point).
Complain to the appropriate police-oversight body.
And what, exactly, would you have done if you knew the make of the boot? Unlike the TV crime shows, the chances are that you'll find out that there were several hundred thousand of those boots made of that size. Does that help you catch the thief? Nope.
Seriously, for a residential break-in or minor theft, it doesn't make sense to use forensics. It's a poor use of police resources.
Bullshit. How much do you think it costs to pay a forensics-trained officer for the couple of hours it'll take to go to your house, lift the prints, and check them against a database? I'd bet it's a lot more than the cost of repairing a door or window, which will probably be covered by your insurance anyway.
That's the main problem with residential break-ins. Unless the thief is caught in the act, the chances of them being arrested are fairly slim. It's not because the police aren't doing their jobs - it's because there isn't enough evidence at a typical break-in to link to a particular thief.
That's beside the point. The original question had to do with fingerprints. For the most part, fingerprinting works really well to confirm that a particular person committed a particular crime, but only if you have a good idea of who the criminal is in the first place. Real policework isn't like what you see on CSI, where the fingerprint gets put into a computer and the thief's picture comes up two seconds later.
And if the criminal's prints aren't in any database, the lifted print will match exactly nothing.
See above. Even if they do take prints, the chance of a match is pretty slim. Most break-ins are committed by youths, who often haven't been arrested and fingerprinted before. Even if they have been fingerprinted, the prints may not be available for cross-referencing.
You've been watching far too much CSI. Stop worrying about what the police have been doing, and look at what you can do to ensure that your home or car isn't a likely target.
Human beings. I'd much rather have the police worrying about violent crime than property crime. "Valuable property", regardless of how valuable, can be replaced, often with insurance.
That's probably because many police forces have realized that the only benefit to doing forensics after a residential break-in is that it'll make the homeowner feel like something is being done, regardless of whether that action does anything.
Most people spend far too much time worrying about what the police are doing about crimes, yet they do virtually nothing sensible to protect their own property. For example, the tools mentioned in the original post - do you think they were appropriately marked (say, with a driver's license number), so that they can be traced back to the original owner if they get recovered? Probably not...
"badgolferman" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.readfreenews.net:
Got news for you;you can't sue the police for not doing their job. It's been tried already,even for much more serious crimes.
Something you REALLY will not like to hear;The police do NOT have to come if you call 911.If they are busy elsewhere,you're on your own.Same goes for natural disasters like hurrcanes,floods.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.