3 Robbed In Grocery Store Parking Lot

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.click2houston.com/news/19890217/detail.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1 Man Wounded In Shooting

POSTED: Monday, June 29, 2009
UPDATED: 7:56 am CDT June 29, 2009

HOUSTON -- Three men were robbed in the parking lot of a north Harris County grocery store on Sunday, KPRC Local 2 reported.

Harris County sheriff's deputies said an armed man approached the men as they walked to their car at the Kroger store on F.M. 1960 near Bammel Westfield Road at about 9 p.m.

The robber shot one of the men, investigators said. He was taken to Ben Taub Hospital and is expected to survive.

A sheriff's deputy was in the parking lot at the time of the attack and arrested the robber.

[AEA]

WOW..........a cop actually there when needed! Hard to believe!

[TexasVet]

WOW..........a cop actually there when needed! Hard to believe!

However even the deputy being there didn't deter or stop the robber from shooting someone.

[caldvn]

WOW..........a cop actually there when needed! Hard to believe!

However even the deputy being there didn't deter or stop the robber from shooting someone.

What I've noticed, and didn't realize till recently, cops don't prevent crimes (I don't mean if a BG sees a cop, BG is not going to do anything type of prevent.) Police only react after a crime has been commited. That's probably wrong, due to the limitation of their resources and policies (bureacracy), police are unable to prevent crimes as well as they should be able to.

[mr.72]

What I've noticed, and didn't realize till recently, cops don't prevent crimes (I don't mean if a BG sees a cop, BG is not going to do anything type of prevent.) Police only react after a crime has been commited.

Of course they don't prevent crimes.

That's not the point! Police respond to crime. First comes the crime, then comes the police.

Sure, in some cases the presence of the police can deter crime. Or the police presence can cause a criminal to select a different target or venue for their crime. Even considering traffic violations, when there is a police car driving beside you, you are less likely to speed or run a red light but as we are seeing now in Austin, that does not satisfy the intent of the police so they are going to be riding in city buses to make sure people do not feel deterred from their bad driving by the presence of the police, thus giving them every opportunity to write tickets.

In fact, I think it's relatively standard operating procedure for the police to even commit what would be crimes if we were to do it, in order to witness other criminals in progress, or even induce another to commit a crime. I recognize that the current opinion in the law is that this is legal but it reveals that the intent of the police is hardly to prevent crime.

Never will you find a police chief going to a press conference saying, "dear citizens of Austin, it is not our intent to prevent crime but rather to enable it, so that we can prosecute more bad guys and obtain a high conviction rate, while continuing to increase our funding, staff, equipment, training, and authority in the community". But it's just like any other government enterprise. They do not judge success by the reduction of the necessity for police because there is simply not enough crime. This is one of the flaws of our system of government on the whole.

The only time I think police really can prevent a crime is if they can prosecute another crime which is in succession to the prevented crime. So for example, if someone is driving drunk 100mph down the wrong side of I-35, then the police can prevent the crime of vehicular homicide by prosecuting the crime of DUI. But often they will look the other way in hopes of allowing a criminal to commit a larger crime to prosecute. Certainly not in the case where the larger crime is homicide or another violent crime but if it's drug-related or online solicitation of a minor then you betcha.

[Excaliber]

WOW..........a cop actually there when needed! Hard to believe!

However even the deputy being there didn't deter or stop the robber from shooting someone.

What I've noticed, and didn't realize till recently, cops don't prevent crimes (I don't mean if a BG sees a cop, BG is not going to do anything type of prevent.) Police only react after a crime has been commited. That's probably wrong, due to the limitation of their resources and policies (bureacracy), police are unable to prevent crimes as well as they should be able to.

Here's a rule of thumb to determine how well you are protected from crime by the police at any given time:

1) Hold your arms straight out from your sides at shoulder level.
2) Keeping your arms at shoulder height, spin slowly in a circle until you are again facing the direction in which you started.
3) Count the number of police officers your arms contacted during this procedure.

The output of step 3 is the number of police officers providing effective protection to you as an individual at that moment.

Police prevent crimes in two ways:

1) By their immediate presence (which doesn't prevent a crime from eventually occurring - it simply
displaces it to another time and place, since the desire of the criminal to commit the crime is unchanged)
2) By arresting offenders of past crimes so the criminal justice system can imprison them and deny them access to additional
victims for a fixed period of time.

Police forces are configured to provide generalized crime investigation and suppression services to the community as a whole. The usual staffing formula is to employ 2 or 3 officers per 1000 people in the community. Let's do a little math here:

There are 2080 working hours in a year. Three officers provide 6240 working hours to their 1000 person segment of the community during that time.

A significant portion of that time is not spent on the street, so we need to subtract those hours when those 3 officers aren't available to respond to your needs, and factor in time spent on the needs of others:

Training: Minimum of 40 hours per officer per year - 120 hours
Vacation: Three weeks per officer per year - 360 hours
Sick time: 5 days per officer per year - 120 hours
Report writing: 25% of on shift time - 1410
Court time: 10 days per year - 240 hours
Response to calls other than yours: 50% of remaining on shift time - 2700 hours

That leaves a best case scenario of an average 2.7 hours (2700 hours divided by the 1000 people those 3 officers serve) per year available for services to you during the 8760 hours of your year, or .03% of the time when step 3 in the exercise above will touch a police officer who is in position to provide effective protection to you as an individual at that moment.

A realistic expectation is that police will respond to a call for service in prioritized order with the resources available at that given moment in time. Those resources will vary according to the levels of service needed at other locations in the jurisdiction at that time. If things are quiet, response is likely to be relatively quick. If things are busy, you'll wait your turn to see the first officer after a while.

If you are in a situation where violence has already begun or will begin before police can arrive, you're on your own with whatever skills and resources you possess until they get there.

The wise man plans accordingly.

[joe817]

Wow Excaliber! Good post! And an excellent justification for one getting a CHL.

[NutterButters]

[srothstein]

Well, most of the points here are valid and to be considered, but i wanted to take the other side for a little bit. There is a theory among a group of police who believe their job IS to prevent crime. This is based on two assumptions. The first is that arresting criminals for small crimes will prevent them committing larger crimes (as Excaliber pointed out). The second is a different point of view from Excaliber's on the presense of the officer.

I contend that i did not merely displace the crime, but I actually prevented it (I will grant I displaced some but I also prevented some). Of the crimes that I did displace, I enabled further prevention efforts by making it easier to catch the criminals (being moved from their target area makes them less likely to be successful). Obviously, there is no way to prove whether I merely displaced the criminal or actually prevented him. When I last worked on this (1990 time frame) we saturated an area with officers and the crime rate went down. Some surrounding areas had increases, but not the same increase as the decrease. This led me to believe in this theory as actually preventing some crime.

So, I subscribe to two theories in law enforcement. The first is the high visibility patrol theory and the second is the broken window theory.

The high visibility theory says that if I make the officers on patrol stand out more, crime will decrease. As pointed out, you are less likely to even speed when you know there is an officer nearby, so the more I can make it seem like there is one close, the less crime I should see. I like red patrol cars with reflective stripes and overhead bars. The more you see the police, the more you think they are there (actually even thinking there ar emore of them than there really are). Unmarked cars and "slick tops" (traffic cars witht he lights in the grill instead of overhead) do encourage crime to occur so they can catch the criminal. I prefer to discourage it to begin with.

The broken window theory says that the police should be making extreme efforts to arrest for all crimes, even minor ones like someone breaking a window. It goes further to enlist the community in getting rid of the empty houses/buildings to discourage crime, but the effort to arrest and convict for simple crimes is alleged to help prevent the bigger ones. I believe in this theory and support it.

You can help determine which theories the police in your neighborhood belong to. Get active and meet with the Chief and the city manager and councilmen. Express your opinion on how your police should work. They are your employees and you get to have a say int he matter (or you should).

As a side, there are valid reasons for a cop to commit a crime to ctch a criminal. Stings can be the only way to catch some criminals. This is not really inducing the other person to commit the crime but making it possible for someone who wanted to already. Inducing a person to commit a crime is entrapment and is illegal. Permitting someone to do what they wanted to is not. There is a moral question as to whether or not we should have those actions as crimes (such as drugs or selling alcohol to minors) but that is not a police question. That is a legislator question and solution.

[Excaliber]

Well, most of the points here are valid and to be considered, but i wanted to take the other side for a little bit. There is a theory among a group of police who believe their job IS to prevent crime. This is based on two assumptions. The first is that arresting criminals for small crimes will prevent them committing larger crimes (as Excaliber pointed out). The second is a different point of view from Excaliber's on the presense of the officer.

I contend that i did not merely displace the crime, but I actually prevented it (I will grant I displaced some but I also prevented some). Of the crimes that I did displace, I enabled further prevention efforts by making it easier to catch the criminals (being moved from their target area makes them less likely to be successful). Obviously, there is no way to prove whether I merely displaced the criminal or actually prevented him. When I last worked on this (1990 time frame) we saturated an area with officers and the crime rate went down. Some surrounding areas had increases, but not the same increase as the decrease. This led me to believe in this theory as actually preventing some crime.

So, I subscribe to two theories in law enforcement. The first is the high visibility patrol theory and the second is the broken window theory.

The high visibility theory says that if I make the officers on patrol stand out more, crime will decrease. As pointed out, you are less likely to even speed when you know there is an officer nearby, so the more I can make it seem like there is one close, the less crime I should see. I like red patrol cars with reflective stripes and overhead bars. The more you see the police, the more you think they are there (actually even thinking there ar emore of them than there really are). Unmarked cars and "slick tops" (traffic cars witht he lights in the grill instead of overhead) do encourage crime to occur so they can catch the criminal. I prefer to discourage it to begin with.

The broken window theory says that the police should be making extreme efforts to arrest for all crimes, even minor ones like someone breaking a window. It goes further to enlist the community in getting rid of the empty houses/buildings to discourage crime, but the effort to arrest and convict for simple crimes is alleged to help prevent the bigger ones. I believe in this theory and support it.

You can help determine which theories the police in your neighborhood belong to. Get active and meet with the Chief and the city manager and councilmen. Express your opinion on how your police should work. They are your employees and you get to have a say int he matter (or you should).

As a side, there are valid reasons for a cop to commit a crime to ctch a criminal. Stings can be the only way to catch some criminals. This is not really inducing the other person to commit the crime but making it possible for someone who wanted to already. Inducing a person to commit a crime is entrapment and is illegal. Permitting someone to do what they wanted to is not. There is a moral question as to whether or not we should have those actions as crimes (such as drugs or selling alcohol to minors) but that is not a police question. That is a legislator question and solution.

I generally agree with Steve on most points here, and do not see them as conflicting what I posted earlier. His thoughts provide a more nuanced and philosophical / strategic approach from the law enforcement side, while I directed my post toward the practical implications of law enforcement realities for the citizen.

High visibility patrol and "broken window theory" enforcement efforts (both of which I used extensively when those were my decisions to make) are highly effective in reducing the crime levels where they are employed if they have strong support from the community. Without that support, the community can impose its own will by using youngsters as paid lookouts for drug transactions, allowing use of apartments for illegal activities on a random basis, refusing to act as witnesses, and other similar steps. The amount of manpower it would take to overcome these actions is simply not available.

I also agree that some crime is actually prevented (although I prefer the word "deterred.") In my experience, this effect occurs primarily with "optional" crimes (ones without a lot of emotional drivers) behind them. Petty vandalism, graffiti, public intoxication, etc. can be cleaned up pretty readily with the appropriate level of effort and community support. Drug crimes, burglary, car theft, robbery, homicide, etc. are a lot tougher. I had no illusions that my patrol and enforcement policies led to people abandoning their drug habits by the score. In my experience, these crimes and other similar ones are the types that are displaced from one area which becomes too risky to another generally nearby area that isn't as hostile to these activities.

My overall view is that, given an adequately staffed, well trained, well equipped, and highly motivated police force, each community will have the level of crime it will tolerate. Its inhabitants will work with the police to deter and investigate anything above that, and crimes in this category become excessively high risk for the perps. In some communities, that means someone will call in complaints for littering, and other neighborhoods set the bar a bit higher at homicides or somewhere in between.

As a short term practical matter for the citizen, however, the abbreviated synopsis I provided in my earlier post provides the most practical frame of reference. Police provide generalized protective services to a community, not to individuals, and this has been established firmly in the courts as a matter of law. Police who are not actually present at your location do not provide effective protection to you if a criminal decides to target you at that moment in time. Anyone who thinks they will is bound to be disappointed if that belief is ever put to the test.

If anyone doubts that, call up a senior police commander in your jurisdiction and ask him if he will guarantee to keep you as an individual free from harm. You could save time by looking at the crime stats for your municipality and asking yourself how all those crimes could have happened if the police protect individuals. You could gain a more personalized touch by watching America's Most Wanted and listening to the 911 calls from folks who were actually being murdered as they begged for help on the phone.

The simple fact is: police are not an occupying army and are spread thin. They aren't staffed or configured to protect specific individuals (outside of government protection details) unless they either detect an unfolding incident by targeted patrol, investigative efforts, or luck, or they are notified in time to respond and intervene before harm to innocents occurs.

As a practical matter, anyone who is faced with a here and now criminal attack is on his or her own until the police can be notified, transit the distance between where they started from and where the incident is occurring, and take effective action. For better or worse, citizens are on their own during this interval, and should make their preparations accordingly.

[Oldgringo]

I look forward to posts/responses from both Excaliber and srothstein. While I may not totally agree with either on occassion, they both bring the voices of reason, experience and common sense to this forum. Did I mention legality?

Thank you both for being here when we need you.

[pedalman]

We citizens have an obligation to be another pair of eyes and ears, to augment those of law enforcement.

I'm a firm believer in the mantra, "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen." We have a duty to report suspicious activity. Or at least reasonably suspicious activity (Uhh, Ma'am...a stray cat sitting on your car is not exactly a police emergency).

For example, I live next door to a school. There are "No Trespassing" signs all over the property, but teenagers like to skateboard there. When a group of skateboarders are on the school grounds (usually after dark), I call the non-emergency police number and report them as trespassers. My tax dollars pay for that school, and for any vandalism/other damage committed to that school. One officer told me that there have been times where younger kids try to hang out with these older skateboarders, and end up getting mugged for their boards. Those are crimes that have taken place. To me, this is more than enough reason to report such incidents.

I have yet to be chastised for reporting suspicious activity. If I don't speak up, I don't think anybody else will. I don't expect a "Hollywood SWAT" response within seconds. I happen to know that police are allocated to areas according to need. If problems aren't reported (documented), then the police have no choice but to think that all is well (it didn't happen).

The best way for citizens to help law enforcement is to provide information. Concise, accurate information is the most helpful resource we can provide to police.

[Excaliber]

I look forward to posts/responses from both Excaliber and srothstein. While I may not totally agree with either on occassion, they both bring the voices of reason, experience and common sense to this forum. Did I mention legality?

Thank you both for being here when we need you.

Oldgringo,

You're more than welcome. I'm glad I can use my experiences to be of service to the thoughtful members of this forum community.

I'm also happy that not everyone agrees with me here. I learn and improve by considering what others contribute and adjusting my positions when flaws are pointed out or when someone comes up with something better. It's happened a lot here, and I'm grateful to you, Steve R., and the many other junior and senior members who take the time to write well thought out posts that get my gears turning.

[Excaliber]

We citizens have an obligation to be another pair of eyes and ears, to augment those of law enforcement.

I'm a firm believer in the mantra, "If it isn't documented, it didn't happen." We have a duty to report suspicious activity. Or at least reasonably suspicious activity (Uhh, Ma'am...a stray cat sitting on your car is not exactly a police emergency).

For example, I live next door to a school. There are "No Trespassing" signs all over the property, but teenagers like to skateboard there. When a group of skateboarders are on the school grounds (usually after dark), I call the non-emergency police number and report them as trespassers. My tax dollars pay for that school, and for any vandalism/other damage committed to that school. One officer told me that there have been times where younger kids try to hang out with these older skateboarders, and end up getting mugged for their boards. Those are crimes that have taken place. To me, this is more than enough reason to report such incidents.

I have yet to be chastised for reporting suspicious activity. If I don't speak up, I don't think anybody else will. I don't expect a "Hollywood SWAT" response within seconds. I happen to know that police are allocated to areas according to need. If problems aren't reported (documented), then the police have no choice but to think that all is well (it didn't happen).

The best way for citizens to help law enforcement is to provide information. Concise, accurate information is the most helpful resource we can provide to police.

You are right on the money here. It's your community, and the police are tasked with intervening when laws are being broken, but they can't be everywhere at once. The community is responsible for maintaining its values by reporting violations of law to the folks assigned to deal with those situations. The community also sets the standard of tolerance that will be maintained where they live, whether the threshold for complaints is littering, robbery, or homicide.

You're also correct about deployment based on complaint statistics. If issues are not reported, they will receive little patrol attention because commanders need to deploy their limited personnel resources to deal with problems they know about. If there are no reports, it's not a problem to the community and will receive little or no attention at the command level.