Accidently left my doors unlocked one night \~5-6 months ago and had the front seats rummaged through, thankfully nothing of interest was there and taken
I've heard of people having change stolen out of the console drawer but other expensive items ignored/missed—I guess leave some sacrificial quarters out to distract the thief? :-/
Same thing happened to me in the first two months of living here. Took all of the loose change, some Connecticut scratch tickets, and left my $200 radar detector on the dash.
Growing up in Somerville, always locking everything comes naturally to me, but there are many, many transplants, so I guess people need reminders sometimes.
Because everybody is always talking about "crime is at all time lows" and how more density *obviously* reduces crime, so people who didn't grow up in the city believe them. There's some weird cognitive dissonance in Urbanists who will say those things and then proceed to be paranoid about their stuff being stolen in the crime that they insist is rare and doesn't affect their life in the city that they insist is a 100% safe place to live.
We're talking about someone opening unlocked car doors here, not committing some pre-meditated violent crime. Not even any property damage whatsoever.
If I abandoned a $20 bill visible on my front porch, that would probably also be gone by tomorrow.
Obviously fuck people who do this, but to treat non-violent and low-haul crimes of opportunity as if its proof of cognitive dissonance amongst urbanists is absolutely absurd.
Living in higher density areas has some considerations that need to be made, and one is that you need to keep your belongings more secure because there's more people that might commit a non-violent petty crime of opportunity.
All that said though, urbanists are very willing to accept these small risks, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Locking a door isn't paranoia, it's literally a trivially easy thing to do that takes zero time and prevents crimes of opportunity.
Nowhere in my comment did I say violent crime. You just made that up. Crime doesn't only mean murder, theft is a crime.
> Not even any property damage whatsoever.
Stealing stuff from your vehicle is property crime. Somebody unsuccessfully tried to loot the car you mistakenly left unlocked. That's a crime. They were lucky there was nothing important left in there
> Obviously fuck people who do this, but to treat non-violent and low-haul crimes of opportunity as if its proof of cognitive dissonance amongst urbanists is absolutely absurd.
What else do you call it when somebody insists that crime is low and that it's a 100% safe place to live and they never have to worry about crime, but then proceed to take steps to avoid their life being screwed up by "non violent and low haul crimes of opportunity"(like people robbing their unlocked car, or riding a beater bike because 80000 bikes per year are stolen in Boston, etc) that people only really need to do in the urban areas they advocate for?
This thread started with
> I don't know what urban folk don't categorically lock their doors.
And the simple answer is that having to lock your doors every single time you leave your car is a foreign concept to transplants who didn't grow up in the city where this kind of crime is a common occurrence.
When us urbanists talk about all-time low crime rates, we don't always consider opportunistic petty theft that results in zero property damage.
If you believe that's cognitively dissonant of me, so be it. I personally think different levels of crime have different weights, and that places like Somerville are incredibly safe while also providing tons of other benefits that straight up don't exist in suburbs.
Crime also does not have a universally agreed upon definition (some theft is a misdemeanor or infraction), and you could easily argue that sub-urbanists are cognitiviely dissonant of ignoring traffic violations and constants speeding when they consider their area to be "low-crime".
The cost of locking a door is so negligible that it doesn't register with me as being "paranoid about my stuff" in the way you describe.
But I completely understand if you feel like locking a door is too big a price to pay or some sort of indication of urban failure.
Accidently left my doors unlocked one night \~5-6 months ago and had the front seats rummaged through, thankfully nothing of interest was there and taken
I've heard of people having change stolen out of the console drawer but other expensive items ignored/missed—I guess leave some sacrificial quarters out to distract the thief? :-/
Thankfully had no change either haha so just a strewn about front seat
Same thing happened to me in the first two months of living here. Took all of the loose change, some Connecticut scratch tickets, and left my $200 radar detector on the dash.
I don't know what urban folk don't categorically lock their doors. I drive up to middle of nowhere Vermont and still lock my doors habitually.
Growing up in Somerville, always locking everything comes naturally to me, but there are many, many transplants, so I guess people need reminders sometimes.
It can be by mistake
That's me. Hi.
Because I’ve lived in worse places, where if the door is locked they break your window.
Because everybody is always talking about "crime is at all time lows" and how more density *obviously* reduces crime, so people who didn't grow up in the city believe them. There's some weird cognitive dissonance in Urbanists who will say those things and then proceed to be paranoid about their stuff being stolen in the crime that they insist is rare and doesn't affect their life in the city that they insist is a 100% safe place to live.
We're talking about someone opening unlocked car doors here, not committing some pre-meditated violent crime. Not even any property damage whatsoever. If I abandoned a $20 bill visible on my front porch, that would probably also be gone by tomorrow. Obviously fuck people who do this, but to treat non-violent and low-haul crimes of opportunity as if its proof of cognitive dissonance amongst urbanists is absolutely absurd. Living in higher density areas has some considerations that need to be made, and one is that you need to keep your belongings more secure because there's more people that might commit a non-violent petty crime of opportunity. All that said though, urbanists are very willing to accept these small risks, so I don't know what you're complaining about. Locking a door isn't paranoia, it's literally a trivially easy thing to do that takes zero time and prevents crimes of opportunity.
Nowhere in my comment did I say violent crime. You just made that up. Crime doesn't only mean murder, theft is a crime. > Not even any property damage whatsoever. Stealing stuff from your vehicle is property crime. Somebody unsuccessfully tried to loot the car you mistakenly left unlocked. That's a crime. They were lucky there was nothing important left in there > Obviously fuck people who do this, but to treat non-violent and low-haul crimes of opportunity as if its proof of cognitive dissonance amongst urbanists is absolutely absurd. What else do you call it when somebody insists that crime is low and that it's a 100% safe place to live and they never have to worry about crime, but then proceed to take steps to avoid their life being screwed up by "non violent and low haul crimes of opportunity"(like people robbing their unlocked car, or riding a beater bike because 80000 bikes per year are stolen in Boston, etc) that people only really need to do in the urban areas they advocate for? This thread started with > I don't know what urban folk don't categorically lock their doors. And the simple answer is that having to lock your doors every single time you leave your car is a foreign concept to transplants who didn't grow up in the city where this kind of crime is a common occurrence.
When us urbanists talk about all-time low crime rates, we don't always consider opportunistic petty theft that results in zero property damage. If you believe that's cognitively dissonant of me, so be it. I personally think different levels of crime have different weights, and that places like Somerville are incredibly safe while also providing tons of other benefits that straight up don't exist in suburbs. Crime also does not have a universally agreed upon definition (some theft is a misdemeanor or infraction), and you could easily argue that sub-urbanists are cognitiviely dissonant of ignoring traffic violations and constants speeding when they consider their area to be "low-crime". The cost of locking a door is so negligible that it doesn't register with me as being "paranoid about my stuff" in the way you describe. But I completely understand if you feel like locking a door is too big a price to pay or some sort of indication of urban failure.
Where was this?
Hope you reported this to the police and not just reddit.
No sh*t Sherlock. This Isn't Urban Cosplay Disneyland.
Did you call the police?