> You've conveniently excerpted the article to avoid showing that it wasn't two thefts randomly scattered across four decades, but four decades without theft and then two thefts that have just happened.
But the parent said just that in the third paragraph:
> does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?
GP starts off with the claim that this is 2 thefts across 40 years, and saying this is not a problem. The later portion you reference conflates citywide rates with incidents affecting a single resident.
That is, no one would say that there wasn't a crime "spree" because none of the 20 people victimized was hit enough times to constitute a "spree". That word refers to the total number of incidents, not just the number of times a single resident was hit. His use of the word spree makes it seem as if only two converters were stolen across the whole city, which is of course untrue. Perhaps this was sloppy writing, but it seems more like he is trying to downplay the frequency and recency of these crimes.
But the parent said just that in the third paragraph:
> does 2 thefts in a week, after 40 years count as a spree?