So what they're doing in general goes in the direction completely opposite to what the broken windows theory would suggest... It seems really weird to me - it's one thing to try to be friendly with someone who's already planning a crime and something completely different when you're providing both incentive and funding for new crime (pawn shops).
I'm surprised nobody's gone after them for entrapment. IANAL, but my understanding is that the definition of entrapment is inducing someone to commit a crime that he wouldn't have been likely to commit otherwise. In the case of convincing a mentally disabled teenager to run drugs and guns, the shoe seems to fit.
IANAL, but entrapent is an affirmative defense; in most cases it moves the burden of proof onto the defendant. That makes it hard to use.
Furthermore, the inducement usually has to be pretty strong. Merely suggesting someone commit a crime is not entrapment. Even paying them to commit a crime isn't in many cases.
Sounds like broken windows to me. They break the windows they arrest people who show up to do more damage. And some people they suggested do damage. And they guy they had break the window. And someone walking by.
