A critical analysis of my car’s break in:
Sometime between 12:30 am on Saturday, May 24th, and 11:30 am on Sunday the 25th, my car was broken into. The vehicle in question is a 2006 Volvo V70, a maroon station wagon. By critically analyzing the methods of robbery and the nature of items seized, I will attempt to hypothesize on the culprit.
My car does not have a functioning alarm, amongst other features. The car could have been broken into at any time throughout the provided window, although I would be skeptical that it happened at any time past 8am, given the daylight. That is, if it was broken into. Although it was clear to me that an intruder had entered my vehicle, there is no visible damage.
In my mind, the one major unknown factor in this crime that would drastically change the suspect is whether or not my car was unlocked. As all humans are, I am prone to occasional mistakes, and I freely admit the possibility that I brought this upon myself by neglecting to lock my car. Regardless of the cause, when I entered my car on Sunday morning, I found my belongings strewn about, covering the floor, passenger, and back seats.
Which brings us to the items that were stolen. I will study both what was taken and items that were left behind to build a profile of the thief. Here is what was taken from my car:
A spherical bluetooth speaker, a single Italian leather driving glove, 2 plastic Bic lighters, a pack of Camel cigarettes, with maybe 9-12 remaining, and a yellow fabric Dewalt bag, which was carrying glass blowing supplies, but likely mistook for tools.
And what was left behind:
A dog bed, a single Italian leather driving glove, multiple 4x4 beams, a first aid kit, a computer microphone arm, wet wipes, McDonalds napkins, 2 sets of climbing shoes, a steel bar (1/8th in x 2in,) and 2 blankets.
To me, this paints the following suspect: someone looking for objects that are quick to consume, useful, or clearly valuable. The smoking supplies are obviously for the culprit, as the dewalt bag seems an obvious grab for a sale. The bluetooth speaker could go either way, making a reliable playing device or a few quick bucks. Likely someone with basic knowledge of what is and is not useful, uninterested in objects that are harder to sell or less clearly valuable.
The items left behind are less convenient to take. The blankets, dog bed, and beams are too large or too heavy to bring. The microphone arm isn’t clearly valuable, and somewhat bulky too. The napkins and wet wipes are easily accessible elsewhere. This being said, an interesting pattern appears. Among the objects left behind are many useful supplies, including blankets, the first aid kit, and wet wipes. The rejection of this category rules out the possibility of a homeless person in my mind. If you broke into a car in such a vulnerable position, it would seem foolish to leave these supplies. So who was it?
As I previously stated, the main divergence in my theory depends on the state of my car's locks. Without this information, no one theory can dominate, so I will approach two.
The first possibility is the car was unlocked. As I don’t think it was somebody homeless, I would suspect an opportunistic passerby. The car was entered from the street side, and the right side was fairly covered by plants and a large tree. If you walked past on the sidewalk, the view of the car’s interior would be obstructed heavily, and the locks themselves would be fully eclipsed. This leads me to the belief that the individual was likely walking in the street, indicating potential use of drugs or alcohol.
This all combines to the picture of a younger person, likely late highschool or college aged. They walk down the street sometime past midnight, potentially inebriated, and spot my unlocked car. After a cursory glance, they notice the bluetooth speaker and cigarettes, and give in to temptation. They sit in the driver's seat and frantically search the front of the car tossing napkins and registration documents alike into the back. They then search the trunk, also unlocked, but beyond the Dewalt bag, find nothing of interest.
The other option is the car was locked. This changes the suspect greatly because it implies a level of skill. As I’ve explained, the car itself was undamaged. If the thief broke in, they probably had a level of knowledge on the ease and methods of breaking into an older car like mine. Although they couldn’t have known there was no alarm, they were likely prepared for one. The item’s taken indicate only basic knowledge of value. Items like climbing shoes are worth potentially hundreds of dollars. I would expect an amateur thief of some kind: perhaps an addict of some kind searching for money or drugs, perhaps a broke college student, perhaps both.
In the end, the decisions came down to somebody’s cost benefit analysis of my belongings. They took immediately useful or recognizable objects: a bluetooth speaker, cigarettes, an apparent toolbag. Everything else was ignored. Not what was most valuable, but what signified it quickly. Their selections weren’t random, only shallow. Speed over scrutiny.
This concept is what sticks with me most. The choices of the thief appear as a perfect example of the choices we are forced to make so often. Items that required context or inspection were dismissed. We are expected to make crucial decisions on instinct, with limited information, and a narrow time frame. Rewarded for our quick, surface level assessments. We scroll, scan and react where there is worth. We discern in seconds. This seems to be a valuable skill set in the current age. Although useful, it is far different from understanding deeply. As my brain did in this case, we long for more complete understanding than we receive. Most of us are not equipped for a world where information moves so quickly, where meaning must be extracted instantly, or not at all.
The result of this surface level optimization is the replacement of value by what looks like it. This applies to objects, status, and information. What is easy to seize is what will be. This is the logic I see in the break in: a reflection of how people are learning to operate. No time for inspection or space for ambiguity. A series of increasingly fast judgements that resemble the systems they are surrounded by.
