Slashdot Mirror
Stolen iPad's Reported Location Not Enough To Warrant Search, Say Dutch Police
lbalbalba writes "A location message sent from a stolen iPad by an anti-theft application turns out to be insufficient evidence to issue a search warrant for the Dutch authorities. A Dutch man reported his iPad as stolen to the Dutch authorities last month. Despite the fact that the rightful owner was able to locate his iPad within hours of the theft, thanks to the anti-theft application he had installed, the Dutch authorities did not issue a warrant to perform a search. According to the prosecutors, a search warrant is 'a very heavy measure,' that should only be used when there is 'sufficient suspicion.' The theft report by the owner was viewed as 'no objective evidence' in the case."
Whatever you do,
whatever happens:
Don't call the police.
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
He tracked the phone to the trunk of a car, told the police, and they did nothing.
Consequently, if anything happens to the vehicle he tracked the phone to or the person who owns it, your friend will become suspect #1, all because he made the mistake of talking to the police.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The Dutch police doesn't even enter an house when there are two of them and they literally hear someone get tortured to death. I'm not making this up; this actually happened. The officers in front of the house could hear screams and moans and did absolutely nothing.
Want more? Neighbors heard a woman cry and scream for help and it sounded so distressful that they called the police. The police came, rang the doorbell an after a small talk they left, never to bother with his again. 3 months later it turned out that the woman in question was being held by her will, prostituted, treated in extreme inhumane ways and well... "The police thinks they may have made a mistake by not entering the premices".
And the list goes on and on.
On the positive side. If you manage to speed a little on the Dutch highways (you know, reckless driving where you dare to drive 85 - 86 km/hr instead of the allowed 80 km/hr) then chances are very high that you will get a speeding ticket. That's where the Dutch police truly excels.
So quite frankly, within this context this can hardly come as a surprise.
Imagine how many thefts and assults there would be if people did not have guns?
We have cities that imposed weapons bans within city limits, it did not reduce crime at all. In fact some of those cities have HIGHER rates of crimes and higher rates of murder and crimes committed with guns. The thiefs know that there is a very strong chance the potential victim will not have a gun.
Good one. :-)
Of course the next thing that would happen is the police arrest the homeowner for filing a false report, or abusing 911 resources, or wasting police officers' time on a crime of low priority. Or maybe just "disturbing the peace" which is the standard catch-all to arrest someone who did nothing wrong (like Professor Gates).
interestingness - disturbing the peace is NOT an arrestable offence (in the UK) once the act is over with unless the disturbance is 1) on going, or 2) likely to reoccur.
The police officer that tried to arrest me for such didn't like it when I pointed this out to him, but he checked and found that I was correct.
Not the same thing.
The sworn statement means "if later it is discovered that I was lying, then I'm committing a crime".
If an app says that my iPad is in a house, and that turns to be false, then I'm not commiting a crime - I'm not "responsible" for what the app says.
But burglary is only one crime parameter. If you look at a broader range of crime statistics the picture is less clear cut. Rape is for example twice as prevalent in Holland as in the US. Overall victimization is also higher in Holland. But other crime statistics show less crime in Holland.
http://www.nationmaster.com/compare/Netherlands/United-States/Crime
On top of all that is the actual usefulness of guns in the first place. Unless you're well trained and practicing regularly, handguns are pretty useless for actually shooting a person who doesn't want to be shot. Ever go to a gun range? If you do, look at how ridiculously close most handgun shooters have their targets. At that range, you're better off running up to your foe and punching them.
That's bullshit. Most people actually place targets too far on the handgun range, because, statistically, the person trying to assault you is almost guaranteed to be within 5 meters from you when you notice them and start to react. And even a person that has minimal gun practice will have no problem unloading a full magazine into a human-size figure at that distance (from personal experience - I could easily group shots within a 5-inch circle or so at 15 feet when I first tried to shoot a handgun - and that was a compact Glock, not some kind of match gun).
Most certainly, you're not better of running up to your foe and punching them. For one, it's still slower than aiming and squeezing the trigger. For another, it does not do anything to stop a determined assailant, unless you're physically much stronger than they are.
The reason why handguns are superior self-defense tools (compared to e.g. martial arts training) is precisely because an average person can learn to use one very efficiently in self-defense situations that actually have any likelihood of occurring in real life with minimal time and effort invested into learning the ropes and maintaining the skill.
UK's homocide rate in 2010 was 1.23 / 100,000
Vermont's was 1.12.
Vermont has the fewest gun laws of any of the 50 states. You do not need a permit to carry concealed. UK has some of the world's strictest gun laws.