Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Spare change is a small price to pay to live in a welcoming, diverse community.
Where’s the diversity? All shades of white?
Anonymous wrote:On nextdoor I'm seeing people claiming that these burglars are using some kind of amplifiers that boost the signal of your car key (presumably inside your house while you're sleeping) to open locked doors without the use of force.
I don't know the veracity of these claims, but a lot of people say they're buying faraday boxes in which to store their car keys at night.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is a bit of a disconnect in these accounts, because no one is going to invest in the kind of signal booster it would take to pull this off and then be content with taking only small change. If that’s all they’re going for, then it’s more likely that people aren’t low locking their cars like they claim.
I think people just forget. Last month, we saw one neighbor even leave a minivan door open at night. (We told them.)
I totally agree, and completely understand how it happens (it’s not like I’ve never left my car unlocked accidentally). I just think some people need to temper the hysteria (here and on NextDoor) to be more in line with what’s actually happening. Kids rifling through unlocked cars to steal pocket change is wrong and shouldn’t happen, but it’s also not a huge safety threat to the community.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is a bit of a disconnect in these accounts, because no one is going to invest in the kind of signal booster it would take to pull this off and then be content with taking only small change. If that’s all they’re going for, then it’s more likely that people aren’t low locking their cars like they claim.
I think people just forget. Last month, we saw one neighbor even leave a minivan door open at night. (We told them.)
I totally agree, and completely understand how it happens (it’s not like I’ve never left my car unlocked accidentally). I just think some people need to temper the hysteria (here and on NextDoor) to be more in line with what’s actually happening. Kids rifling through unlocked cars to steal pocket change is wrong and shouldn’t happen, but it’s also not a huge safety threat to the community.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:There is a bit of a disconnect in these accounts, because no one is going to invest in the kind of signal booster it would take to pull this off and then be content with taking only small change. If that’s all they’re going for, then it’s more likely that people aren’t low locking their cars like they claim.
I think people just forget. Last month, we saw one neighbor even leave a minivan door open at night. (We told them.)
Anonymous wrote:There is a bit of a disconnect in these accounts, because no one is going to invest in the kind of signal booster it would take to pull this off and then be content with taking only small change. If that’s all they’re going for, then it’s more likely that people aren’t low locking their cars like they claim.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Spare change is a small price to pay to live in a welcoming, diverse community.
Where’s the diversity? All shades of white?
Anonymous wrote:Spare change is a small price to pay to live in a welcoming, diverse community.
Anonymous wrote:To the smart asses... they’re leaving behind valuables like electronics and taking only cash/ coins in the area I’m aware of ...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have never seen such a precise definition of “suspicious activity” on a police public awareness document. I’m not saying it’s at all wrong. I would imagine it could effectively give an individual deemed “suspicious” a legal cause of action if the reporter is not able to justify her/his suspicions within the four corners of this definition. That is, hypothetically, seeing an unrecognized individual slowly strolling on a public carrying a duffel bag at 2am wouldn’t be enough probably. Seeing said person peering into car windows might be sufficient, though.
You got something against duffel bags?
No, but hypothetically it’s a thing into which other items could be placed.
Oh yeah...must be why they're used by so many non-commissioned personnel in the military, and for travel, sports and recreation by civilians.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I have never seen such a precise definition of “suspicious activity” on a police public awareness document. I’m not saying it’s at all wrong. I would imagine it could effectively give an individual deemed “suspicious” a legal cause of action if the reporter is not able to justify her/his suspicions within the four corners of this definition. That is, hypothetically, seeing an unrecognized individual slowly strolling on a public carrying a duffel bag at 2am wouldn’t be enough probably. Seeing said person peering into car windows might be sufficient, though.
You got something against duffel bags?
No, but hypothetically it’s a thing into which other items could be placed.