Some people believe, and have even posted here, that the police don’t prevent crime, all they can do is respond after the fact and (according to other people here), can’t really be depended upon to do anything other than write a report about it.

The fact is that such statements are nonsense. If you want very obvious proof, go live for a time in a country without any effective policing. If you make it back to a country that does have effective policing, let us know what you discovered and how you liked it there without all that harassment.

One aspect of good policing is investigating things that aren’t crimes in themselves. In this country we don’t have to cooperate with the police if they contact us, but cooperate or not, such contacts lead to solving many crimes. And just as important, when bad guys (or gals or potential bad guys or gals) realize that the police follow up on and investigate suspicious activities, many of them decide that doing bad things is not such a good idea: “If they caught me doing something that wasn’t illegal, what would happen if it was?”

Such policing doesn’t prevent all crime, of course, and most of the time it’s impossible to measure how effective it is. But all competent LEOs do know that it’s effective to some degree.

I spent half of my Army CID career in Germany at a large training base. The clubs were often quite far from the billet areas for visiting units, the soldiers had no cars, and long stretches of the roads were not lighted. As a result when I first got there, strongarm robberies of drunken soldiers walking back to their units were common. After a time, another agent suggested we start patrolling those areas after dark. Our conspicuous unmarked cars led to many GIs’ yelling terms of endearment at us as we drove by, but what else happened? Yes, the robbery rate dropped dramatically. Sometimes we also contacted men we thought looked suspicious (Profiling? Us? Surely not!), and by getting their names and units they knew who we’d be looking for if anything happened in that area.
We never caught anyone in the act of robbing someone, but we got a few drug cases now and then, and we had many fewer unsolvable robbery cases to work.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:.... defendant takes a substantial step towards commission of the crime.....

Writing a note, that no one sees, then discarding the note without showing to anyone, along with ripping it up, then leaving Bank. Sorry, not "substantial". Based on that reasoning, walking to the door of the bank, grabbing the door handle and opening the door, she is now guilty of attempted robbery since opening the door would be necessary to rob the bank, or a "substantial step".

The bank's action of rooting through the trash, putting the note together, to read it, cannot act as her "substantial step".

It's enough in the jurisdiction I mentioned.

Yes, you would likely have to open the door to rob the bank, but that's something you would do in the course of normal business--therefore, I would agree with you that things that you would normally do inside a bank like walk around, breath, get a cup of water, open the door, are not substantial steps.

However, writing a "give me they money" note is not something you would do in the course of regular business with the bank. Even if you destroy the note, you've already composed it. Writing it a substantial step toward commission of the crime and is unique to the commission of a crime.

Side note: It's not the bank's rooting around to fix the note that makes it a substantial step. It's her doing it, regardless of what happens later.

And maybe the note was going to say: "Give me the money in my account.

Spoken by a lawyer. Only works if she has an account in the bank. If the glove doesnt fit you must acquit.

Or.. the ripped up note means she has an interesting sense of humor.

quote:

Originally posted by Holger Danske:
So now the police are searching for this person. My question is why? What crime has been committed?

Why??? Why wouldn't they? Probably to figure out who it was and keep tabs on her. Doesn't mean they are going to charge her with anything. Her next attempt may not involve a note, etc.

If this happened in Massachusetts, you can rest assured there's a law.

If she can positively Id’d, there is no harm with a knock and talk. If she has never engaged in such behavior before (very likely) it’s possible it would be the one thing that discourages her from ever trying. Let’s her know she’s on the radar even if she is completely uncooperative.

Here’s the thing. If the police do not follow up, and she decides to do it again, and the next time she escalated and hurts someone, people will ask why the police didn’t do anything the last time.

This is the world we live in.

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:
It's enough in the jurisdiction I mentioned.
....

Tough jurisdiction.....

quote:

Originally posted by LDD:

Yes, you would likely have to open the door to rob the bank, but that's something you would do in the course of normal business--therefore, I would agree with you that things that you would normally do inside a bank like walk around, breath, get a cup of water, open the door, are not substantial steps.

However, writing a "give me they money" note is not something you would do in the course of regular business with the bank. Even if you destroy the note, you've already composed it. Writing it a substantial step toward commission of the crime and is unique to the commission of a crime.

Side note: It's not the bank's rooting around to fix the note that makes it a substantial step. It's her doing it, regardless of what happens later.

So, based on your jurisdiction, and that fact that entering the bank is not "substantial", then her writing the note at home and discarding it, if found, would lead to her prosecution of Attempted robbery?

I think not. I would love to see that case law in your jurisdiction that affirmed a conviction on these types of facts.

She's probably not smart enough to know to NOT talk to the police. So they'll be able to get her to incriminate herself with a consensual contact and some clever questioning. I would refuse all contact if the police asked me anything about myself or my actions. Most people don't know they can do that.

quote:

Originally posted by Rick Lee:
She's probably not smart enough to know to NOT talk to the police. So they'll be able to get her to incriminate herself with a consensual contact and some clever questioning. I would refuse all contact if the police asked me anything about myself or my actions. Most people don't know they can do that.

It’s a little presumptuous to assume that charging her is the only reason they’d want to talk to her. Just by speaking to her they might be doing her the greatest favor possible. If she was writing a note to clear out her account as suggested in some posts here (laughable in my opinion) she would just ask the teller what her balance is and, oh I don’t know, fill out the withdrawal slip properly.

If she were in fact so down on her luck she was thinking robbing a bank was a viable option, she’d likely never consider it again. About 60% of bank robbers get caught. She might make it home before she gets ID’d.

If she is a hardened criminal, (even more laughable than the note scenario) her zeal to rob banks would take a big hit on how quickly the law located her.