The problem with fingerprinting is that it requires a large amount of expertise
(usually it requires a forensic officer, not just a regular cop) and rarely
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
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.
OK so you talk them into sending out someone to take fingerprints. That
cost the taxpayers, including you, how much? So now they have some
fingerprints and how many million people that they may match?? What do you
I would rather they spend their limited resources where they will
protect the most lives and property. It would appear your problem is not
BTW about 15 years ago someone did break into our home and they stole
some electronic equipment. In this case they did take fingerprints, but
that was only because my son thought he knew who they might be. He was
right. Some 10 years before that I was woke by some noise. I called the
police, they came right out. After checking things out and finding that
someone was trying to break in a window and my cat and I moving around
scared them off, they stuck around for a while in their car. about ten
minutes later someone took off (about 2:00 am) from an alley and make a
quick turn with their lights out. The police gave chase and caught them.
The got them based on the tools they had, as couple of stop signs and sine
stolen property. Most of the time they do a good job, let them do it.
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.
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
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
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
crime, but only if you have a good idea of who the criminal is in the first
policework isn't like what you see on CSI, where the fingerprint gets put into a
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
See above. Even if they do take prints, the chance of a match is pretty slim.
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
"Valuable property", regardless of how valuable, can be replaced, often with
That's probably because many police forces have realized that the only benefit
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,
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...
I know you raised a lot of points saying essentially that for every $2
in we spend on crime fighting we prevent $1 worth of crime. I don't
believe it but I am not going to try to dispute it at this time.
Instead I am going to ask this.
As a man of principal, should we stand for this ethically?
"Millions for warships but not a penny for tribute" doesn't ring
true for you? It is better to have $999,999.99 worth of stolen
property and damage than to spend $1,000,000.00 on crime fighting? We
might argue about whether or not money spent on crime fighting is cost
effective but I believe we will never see eye to eye on the ethical
Rejoice, although I firmly believe I am right on this you appear to be
in the majority.
Money isn't really the issue. Say they had a dozen cops strip your car to
pieces, find every
possible shred of evidence for your tool theft, and do every bit of
What do you think the chances are that they'll catch the thief AND successfully
bet the chances are actually fairly low.
It is interesting that you say "she." Do you know it is a woman? Do
you know what woman? Unless you know who it is likely to be, how do you
think the police are going to know. You have a fingerprint. Great so where
do you go from there? How do you connect that with a particular person?
Most people have no fingerprints on file. That includes most people who do
break ins. Even if you could find a match, then how do you find that
person? Do you think it is really worth spending many thousands of dollars
to find one kid who broke into your truck.
Get a life. You are not the only one. This is real life, not TV show
I had a situation like this happen once. I was president of a condo
association and we had a punk in his 20's show up and move in with his
mother and step-dad. He was a real trouble maker, no job, went around
intimidating residents, standing outside their units just staring at
them, asking them for money, etc. I'd heard complaints from a half
dozen people. He'd had confrontations at the pool. So, one day he
goes to the pool and the lifeguard asks to see his pool badge, as she
does with everyone. He gets in her face and curses her out in front of
everyone. She calls the cops, I get informed of it and go over. So, I
tell him to go home, he's not using the pool today. Couple days later,
I have FU carved in the hood of my car.
So, I called the cops, they came out, took the report. They already
knew the punk, he had a long arrest record. But like in this case,
they said there was nothing more they could do. I asked about trying
for fingerprints, was told wasn;t worth the effort. So, I made a call
to the condo association attorney and asked him to call the township
business administrator. That same day, I had a cop dusting for prints.
And he confirmed what a career criminal this skunk was and that he was
dangerous. For the next week, I'd look out and see a cruiser parked
on the street in front of my home, randomly for a couple hours at a
time, where it had an excellent view of where the punk was living too.
Asked them what they were doing and they said they were there to put
some heat on the guy, let him know they're watching. I also notified
the parents that they were up for violations of the condo rules and
regulations by their son and would have to appear at the next hearing.
And I hired an off duty cop to attend as well, since I didn;t know if
the punk was coming and what trouble he might cause.
Within two weeks, the parents got rid of him, moved him out and shipped
him away. Which solved my problem. I think the OP's case is
different, because he has no idea who did it and isn't likely to have
to have further confrontations or have to deal with the perpetrator.
However, if you're not satisfied with what the cops are doing, it's
your right to complain to the municipality that employees them, ie the
business administrator, mayor, council, etc.
This is along the lines of what badgolferman was trying to say. The
police don't listen to mere mortals. You have to pay someone special
to ask the police to protect you and then they will. I have a friend
who is a lawyer that I will ask to call the next time I see them. If
the police do it for a lawyer but not for an individual I think that
says bad things about equal protection.
The over arching legal axiom is that "A duty to all is a duty to none.
That means you have no cause of action in civil law for a failure of
the government to perform a public duty to your satisfaction or even to
any standard. Public servants need only perform their duties to the
satisfaction of the elected officials that direct their work.
What this reminds me of is the patient that wanted the fire service
operated ambulance I was staffing to transport her to Mary Washington
Hospital. Since the trip would have originated in Takoma Park, Maryland
and Mary Washington Hospital is located in Fredericksburg, Virginia I
had to respectfully decline the request. To that family the request
seemed perfectly reasonable. The patient was taking a turn for the
worse. Her doctor and medical records were in Fredericksburg, VA. My
problem was that the distance between the two is sixty two miles and
that, up until that request, I had not known of the hospitals existence.
Who decides what is reasonable effort for a public safety agency. In
the instant case the Fire and Rescue Commission of the Montgomery County
Maryland government had approved a policy permitting providers to
transport to a more distant hospital if in their judgment it would do no
harm to the patient and would not extend the transport time more than
ten minutes. The decision was written in permissive rather than
prescriptive format so that you could never get in trouble by saying no
to a more distant hospital.
Mary Washington was a no brainer but what about Holy Cross which is only
ten minutes further at 0dark30 but twenty five minutes further at rush
hour. Why would the last crew take a family to Holy Cross but we won't.
The unit is chained up and it's snowing but our refusal seams
arbitrary to this family who's pediatrician is on staff at Holy Cross.
The same child with a traumatic injury can go to Children's Hospital,
which is twenty to forty minutes further away, but the neighbor child
the next day can only go to the Washington Adventist Hospital in Takoma
Park because they don't meet the criteria for a specialty referral with
their simple fracture of the left arm. Do you begin to see a pattern
Some times the provider on the scene has to make decisions that are not
in the individuals best interest but hopefully are in the interest of
the public at large. It is often true that the resultant decision will
not endear you to the citizen you are dealing with at that moment.
Well we aren\'t no thin blue heroes and yet we aren\'t no blackguards to.
no surprise there. local cops are basically useless. for real crime, they
call in either the state or feds, and the locals are basically just
secretaries and errand runners. Their real job is to filter out the stuff
that would waste a real investigators time (like house breaks, theft, etc).
If you want a real investigation, find some way to make sure a handgun was
involved. That'll get them interested - especially since there s a chance
that they might actually accidentally run into the perp when another crim is
in progress, and they *hate* the thought of facing someone with heat......
This is actually an idea which I have thought of but I wasn't sure if
it would expose me to liability. A cheap used handgun is about $70.00
here. If I purchased 10 of them for $700.00 and purchased a small
$25.00 lock box for each one that would be about $1000.00 total. I
could keep one in every vacant house and with each group of tools and
in each glove compartment. I don't see any reason why this should be
illegal but I was wondering if anyone else had any thoughts on it? My
other question is if it would be better to put these handguns in the
corporation's name rather than my own?
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:23:15 -0700, email@example.com wrote:
Before, I just thought you were an ordinary idiot. Now, it's clear that
you are a stupid, dangerous, psychopath. What town do you live in - the
local authorities that you have such disdain for would love to know about
You goddam moron.
If you\'re not on the edge, you\'re taking up too much space.
Linux Registered User #327951
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.