> Wow. Wasn't expecting that. The typical apartment building in Taipei contains more considerate tenants than almost anywhere in the world.

Haha...where have you been? Well, that's not really my experience, but OK.

> Sorry for the reverse racism; it's just true.

Well it is true, but it's not reverse racism, it's just racism.

Anyway, not sure how much racism is a factor here though.

I mean, it could be, as racism is always present everywhere ... but because of that, and because of how accusing people of being racists is so self-satisfying, I don't think it's maybe so useful to focus on.

^0: https://www.phc.moj.gov.tw/292667/292668/292678/596725/post (https://web.archive.org/web/20230426120903/https://www.phc.m...)

--

Anyway, the situation as it unfolded (sadly this is all a bit like this article from 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20230426115744/https://www.taipe... https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/editorials/archives/2013/08...):

So the bottom line for me is: a crime was committed, and a camera and some backstory gives a possible suspect. Nobody saw him do it, and we don't know for sure if it was him, but he had means, motive and opportunity.

Means: he's a tall guy, strongly built, around 40 years. Motive: his history of unjustified noise complaints / accusations and harassment. Opportunity: police CCTV puts his whereabouts at the scene and time of the crime, where no one else was.

So, the door was broken, then who else could it be? If anything, he was in the stairwell at the time it happened, so he would be a witness.

Yet despite this, Taipei police seemed like they really didn't want to call this guy up and ask him any questions. "They didn't have his number" was their first protest, despite the fact that they had his address.

I had to suggest they would be able to look it up "in their system", as if, were I ignorant of some police info system where they could look such things up, then they wouldn't have needed to do anything else. !?!?

I always thought they were supposed to do something...like investigate, and protect. That's how it was in Australia.

The rest of the building residents are old people and a few young families, none of which seem to have motive or means to do this, and no one was seen exiting or entering the building for 15 minutes either side of the event.

Police asked his parents who live with him, parents said they didn't know anything about it and police told me: "Therefore, I'm sure he didn't do it."

Sounded like the police: didn't think there was any danger, didn't want to investigate further; didn't want to issue a formal / informal warning or formal / informal mental health query / consult; hoped it wasn't this guy; were playing defence for this guy rather than gathering evidence; didn't want to do anything about it either way.

As nice and caring as the police officers sounded with their words, their actions spoke differently. The vibe I got was that they didn't care; it wasn't a big thing for them, that someone is going to attack this non-Taiwanese; and that it was inconvenient that there was someone who wanted some justice, or wanted something done about this, or who wanted the police to protect them or investigate. As if a few soothing "I understand and care. This is important," would make everything just better and go away, while they didn't actually do anything.

I mean, shouldn't they at least call in on the guy, as their only suspect, even if they can't get a confession, just to kind of assess if they think this guy's going to be a danger in future? I mean, what? Seems kind of bad they didn't do anything.

I understand discretionary prosecution and minor offenses^0, but couldn't something be done by them to prevent further danger and provide a sense of justice? I mean the social contract is I give up my right to take justice into my own hands, because I contract, entrust and outsource the state to do that. So the state has the monopoly of legal physical violence. But if they're not upholding their end of the contract, they're negligent of their duty. So what do I do? I'm not going to revert to a primitive state and be a vigilante, so how do I get justice if and I won't resort to physical violence and if the state is apathetic in its duty to protect me? What do I do, if I can't trust the police will do that? I guess I will use my energy and power, and use my will, and focus my intention on it, like magic, and it's real. I could also trust that a higher power will take care of it for me.

The state's essential sacred duty is the carriage of rightful vengeance for regular people. If it fails to do that, what purpose does it have? In such a sorry state it must resort to spectacles and trivialities. What power does it have over its people without that sacred duty?

I don't really believe the police don't want to do this stuff. I think people join the police because they want to bring justice to the world, and catch all the bad folken and prevent all the harm. But it seems like they're restricted from doing that in Taiwan. Now, what policy would proscribe that behavior?

Once we had established a possible suspect could be identified from the CCTV, no further actions on their part were suggested to me, I needed to take initiative to suggest what they might do next, and when I did, it seemed like 'I was the one that was wrong' or burdensome for even suggesting something be done. It seemed like they hoped I would be like: "Oh sure, someone kicked down my door, I'm perfectly safe. Have a good day."

Broken lock is a small issue, but the experience is not. It's scary and traumatic. You think you have something that protects you, and then someone just violates that. And you realize there's nothing between you and them. And then you realize that the police aren't going to do anything either.

And the whole narrative of an unstable person with a history of harassment toward us, who thinks it's ok to violate a clear physical security boundary in a violent way (similar to how they violated a clear interpersonal boundary by hours-long harassing phone call sagas in the past and fake accusations in the face of facts), seems definitely like something the police should care about. But they don't.

And the narrative that this guy potentially does that "kick the door down", without seemingly thinking there's anything to stop him, and, then to what violence such an individual may escalate doing next, bolstered by the impression of tolerance of their behavior by a "carefree" and limp police response, and enabled by that sense of impunity and lack of consequences that police seeming to not doing anything suggests.

Oh well, I guess that's Taiwan. Maybe it's because I'm not Taiwanese, I don't know.