Crime & civic responsibility

RobertDyck · 2005-09-12 11:20:33

I just saw a TV article on purse grabbing in China, and an ad for CSI that showed a home invasion that is a break-in while the owner is at home. Both cases the message is to stay out of the criminal's way and let him take what you have. This is stupid! As long as you don't defend your possessions you are inviting criminals to take everything you have. The job of the police is to help citizens defend themselves, not take over. There's no way every citizen can have a police officer beside him/her 24/7 so it's important that adult citizens recognise their responsibility to defend their own possessions and their neighbours. If you see a mugger on a scooter snatch a purse, knock the scooter over. If you see a mugger beating someone up, gang up on the mugger. If you see someone break into a neighbour's house, call the police. Holding the criminal until police arrive is the citizen's responsibility; that means you not "someone else". If crime is easy there will be more crime. If crime is safe for criminals then it will be seen as a career rather than an offence by degenerates. You and all your family will be endangered. Helping a stranger on the street by stopping a criminal means you stop that criminal from attacking you or yours. This is hardly new, it was the message of the first Spiderman comic. You don't have to be a superhero bitten by a radioactive spider, just a responsible adult.

I've heard police try to tell people never to defend themselves from muggers. I don't know why police would say something that stupid. Are they trying to defend their jobs? Do they really not understand that if mugging is easy it will happen much more often? Crime is supposed to be very dangerous for criminals; that's what deters them, not prison. Today the USA has a higher proportion of its population in prison than any other country in the world; the current system doesn't work.

Here in Winnipeg crime increased dramatically in 1988-1990, it stopped going up but didn't come down much. My house was broken into 4 times, and the police say it was unusual for the criminal to so thoroughly ransack a house so it was the same guy. After the 3rd break-in I installed a concealed closed-circuit video security system. Crime Stoppers said it was the only video of the real thing, not a re-enactment. After the 4th break-in I installed a monitored alarm system, but I believe it was the fact the word got out that the criminal spent 2 years in federal prison that deterred further break-in. However, my garage has been broken into repeatedly. The criminal took tools: a socket set my brother gave for Christmas, the claw hammer that was my father's when I was a child and I built garages with him, the hedge trimmer from my house with my ex-fiancé, the tap & die set I bought to build my first computer, the steel toed runners I got to work in a chemical plant and later used for a contact sport, and other tools with less sentimental value. The last time they actually stole the new door knob and dead-bolt for that door. The police just say "don't store anything valuable there" and don't do anything. I don't have a basement large enough for my tools, the garage is it so their advice really means move somewhere else. Not reasonable.

But it really steams me when I see advice from supposed authorities trying to get you to cooperate with criminals.

Cobra Commander · 2005-10-10 06:43:00

This is definately one of those times when I'm in complete agreement with Robert. Damn right.

Dook · 2005-10-10 18:25:35

Pick up a weapon to defend tools?

I don't know what the law is in Canada on this but in the US you cannot kill to defend property. When you confront someone with your gun you just may have to use it.

You sound like you are more than ready to kill to defend your hammer. I'm sure it is very special.

Palomar · 2005-10-10 19:50:46

Pick up a weapon to defend tools?
I don't know what the law is in Canada on this but in the US you cannot kill to defend property. When you confront someone with your gun you just may have to use it.
You sound like you are more than ready to kill to defend your hammer. I'm sure it is very special.

*Hmmmm...I disagree. It seems to me the police in Robert's neck of the woods are expecting people to appease crooks and burglars by having to go to extraordinarily ridiculous lengths to protect themselves -- to the point of genuine inconvenience to the taxpayer (who is paying law enforcement to do their jobs in the first place). The taxpayer shouldn't be unnecessarily and deliberately inconvenienced.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2005-10-11 06:07:08

You sound like you are more than ready to kill to defend your hammer. I'm sure it is very special.

I know that Robert isn't advocating that everyone carry a gun to shoot thieves, I've argued with him over that before, it's not what he's saying.

That said, you don't have to shoot thieves to make things hard for them. But let's look at the firearms angle for a moment. You catch a guy stealing stuff from your garage. You pull a Glock and tell him to put his hands up. One of three things happens:

1) He runs away. Your property has been defended, the criminal has been scared, you can call the police and notify them what to be looking for.

2) He complies with the request. You can then call the police and wait for them to arrive, keeping the gun on the criminal until that time. If you have a cellphone this is easy, if you have to go inside for a phone the confrontation ends in option 1.

3) He attacks you. In that case, you have a legitimate self-defense situation. You can shoot him.

But you don't strictly speaking need a gun for this. I personally would prefer to have one, and my neighbors have them, but a bat, sword, taser, pepper spray, or some martial arts training is usable as well. Make it hard for the criminal to steal your stuff and it won't happen as often. One on twenty people with guns and the rest with bats and big dogs is a much better deterrent than "don't put anything valuable in there."

And if that fails, the old bear trap in the garage trick always works.

SpaceNut · 2005-10-11 07:04:47

You forgot the fourth option of which the criminal pulls his own gun and fires perhaps in trying to kill out of fear feeling threatened by the other gun and by trying to provide his own escape means. this is not the best of senerios for the owner of the property either.

Cobra Commander · 2005-10-11 07:43:42

You forgot the fourth option of which the criminal pulls his own gun and fires. . .

Didn't forget, it falls under option 3.

That said, if you've got a gun pointed at some intruder in your house, as soon as he starts pulling his own it's reasonable cause to believe your life is danger, shooting first is legally justified in most parts of the US. So provoking the criminal to violence by brandishing a weapon in your own defense is only a real threat if you're bluffing.

idiom · 2005-10-13 15:52:46

Option four should be 4) The criminal calmly walks away with your property while you weigh up your ability to take life in defence of wealth.

The idea of not defending yourself is to prevent people getting killed instead of put back a hundred bucks. They don't reccomend that you don't testify or report the criminals. They don't reccomend that you try to avoid studying the faces of those attacking you.

RobertDyck · 2005-10-13 17:27:25

The laws up here state you are permitted to use whatever force is necessary to evict a trespasser from your property, or to place a thief under citizen's arrest. The ideal is to simply place a hand on the criminals arm and hold him/her until the police arrive. I would prefer not to establish physical contact without a weapon. By court precedence you are not permitted to use deadly force. That means you can't shoot the criminal unless he/she attacks you with a deadly weapon first.

Since the courts look very badly on shooting a criminal, I don't own a gun. I do have a baseball bat and several wooden swords from my time in an historical recreation society. The society is called the Society for Creative Anachronism. That's "Anachronism", meaning to place a person or thing in a time it doesn't belong, not "Anarchism". I lost count how many times the media made that mistake. But the point is I've had several years training in martial arts using a wooden sword with the same weight as a real sword. The SCA calls it "heavy fighting". It's a full-contact sport. When I say "wooden sword" I actually mean rattan, the same material that wicker is made from but full staves with the husk still on. The husk is like bamboo, it's very strong, but rattan is solid not hollow. This is for safety, if rattan breaks it pulps rather than splintering. The sword is wrapped in a few layers of fibreglass strapping tape for added strength, then duct tape so it sort-of looks like metal. It has a steel plumbing end cap on the pommel for counter balance. Two of my swords have a steel basket-hilt around the handle made of 1/4" solid bars welded together. My first sword just had quillions, cross-guards like Hollywood swords.

Once when I worked in Virginia I borrowed armour because mine was still in Canada. The Marshall of Atlantia (society "kingdom" covering most of the Atlantic states of the US) hit me in the thigh above the leg armour, then a second time in the exact same spot. It created a bruise from my hip to knee and wrapped almost completely around my leg. It's been 9 years but when I excercise my leg I still get a pain in the spot he hit.

The sword with quillions is permanently stored under my bed. When sparring I have put 4" diameter dents in an opponent's helmet made of 16 gauge steel. (And my helmet has dents the same size.) There's a reason that sport considers football and hockey helmets not good enough. Now imagine hitting a criminal that hard in the head without a helmet.

If the criminal tries to calmly walk away, whack him in the back of the knee with your wooden sword or baseball bat.

Mundaka · 2005-10-28 09:55:02

Eigon · 2006-01-02 09:16:08

I find it very odd that you can carry a gun in the States, but the SCA only allows wooden swords.
I'm in a British re-enactment group. My sword is blunted steel. But I often forget to lock my door at night because I live in such a safe area.
I might possibly use my sword to defend myself - against rape, for instance - but I would never use it to defend property.

Cobra Commander · 2006-01-02 12:33:30

What exactly is the hangup about using force against intruders intent on stealing your property? I really don't get it. I'm not advocating that anyone start shooting first at every wandering vagrant that crosses their lawn, but if someone breaks into my home and proceeds to plunder my property I'm going to have no mixed feelings about employing whatever force is required. Most likely it would just involve a few swift whacks with a bokken but still, sometimes a little violence is a good thing. Too much hesitation in the use of force merely encourages criminal behavior.

I would encourage everyone to beat the hell out of any thieving intruders in their home. Even if the burglar gives up, still kick his butt a little.

idiom · 2006-01-02 13:13:41

It probably a lack of materialistic worship. Stuff just isn't worth protecting to that level. Its definitely not worth an altercation where both parties could get seriously wounded.

I have had a computer stolen clean out of my living room, but it was insured. Normally it is the car that gets stolen but it usually shows up the next day, sans mags, so no harm done.

I might get a working lock installed on my front door one day.

Of course it may be that the criminals have taken up Cobras policy. Shoot everyone even if they are not interfering with your crime, that way they don't have a chance to go for a gun or I.D. you later.

Eigon · 2006-01-03 12:25:57

It's just stuff, as idiom says. Nothing I own is worth the risk of getting injured over.
Of course I would be bloody furious if someone did try to make off with my computer, or something, and I would pursue them through the police and the courts, but it's not worth fighting for. It's just stuff.
Other things are worth fighting for, like my own personal safety if I'm attacked.

Cobra Commander · 2006-01-03 13:19:02

It probably a lack of materialistic worship. Stuff just isn't worth protecting to that level. Its definitely not worth an altercation where both parties could get seriously wounded.

But it's not just about "stuff," it's about principle and the cumulative affect of letting things slide. If people don't fight burglars, what's to stop them from burgling? Police? Laughable, you call the police after the crime and tell them some guy in a mask stole your stereo? He'll be back.

Now you catch him in the act and give him a good whoopin' then suddenly we have a level of deterence. Contrary to popular misconception police don't prevent crimes, they show up after crimes and more often than not they never catch the guy. It's up to citizens like you and me to deter crime by making it harder. Raise the risk side of the risk/reward equation for the criminal.

Going to another level, say you stand by as some goon robs your house because "stuff isn't worth risking injury." You've advertised that you won't lift a finger, you will be robbed again. Does an increase in criminals breaking into your home increase or decrease your chances of being attacked?

To advocate non-action against criminals is an irrational and immoral position. It breeds crime and through that endangers everyone.

SpaceNut · 2006-01-03 14:34:55

You just have to be careful as to the extent that you imply force upon the burgular.
:?
So states you may be charge if you sneezed upon him while he was there...
:x

Eigon · 2006-01-03 14:44:37

I'm not advocating non-action.
I'm advocating no violent action.
It is true that, statistically speaking, a house that has been burgled once is more likely to be burgled again, but that's whether or not there was anyone there to defend it.
In the UK we have Neighbourhood Watch - and in this area its cousin Farm Watch -
which are good non-violent ways of keeping an eye on things.

Commodore · 2006-01-03 15:17:24

Making your home a harder nut to crack is always the first step. But also means your home will attract only the alphas and the truely desperate. In otherwords, the ones with the fewest moral qualms with breaking things, yourself included.

Eigon · 2006-01-04 09:36:09

But since 90% of all burglaries are crimes of opportunity, making your house harder to get into is a good move.

Eigon · 2006-01-04 09:37:08

Sorry, I should have added that this figure is true in the UK - I don't know about the States.

idiom · 2006-01-04 16:36:14

I probably do get burgled a whole lot more than I realise. Its just I don't have anything worth the hassle of stealing, minus computers and mine a bit hard to find or recognise.

My home must be really depressing to rob...

If it gets any worse stuff will start showing up in my lounge thanks to sympathetic theives.

If the police are really that bad in your town then why haven't the criminals banded together yet? Burning down all houses with security alarms and shooting the family members of those who resist... Either criminals are to stupid or greedy to work together or your police force is doing a lot more than you give them credit for.

Commodore · 2006-01-04 22:29:46

But since 90% of all burglaries are crimes of opportunity, making your house harder to get into is a good move.

:?
I suppose 90% of the time strangers waltz through your living room in the wee small hours of the morning, they only steal the neat things they happen to see.

[/sarcasm]

Eigon · 2006-01-05 09:33:37

Most burglaries take place during the day, here in the UK, at least, and often it really is "just the neat things" that get taken - or the purse that's been put on the kitchen table for a minute, or the chainsaw that was put in the garden shed and the owner forgot to lock the door.
The traditional idea of the ransacked house with stuff pulled out of drawers and scattered around is just a part of the general burglary statistics.

(Can't you tell I used to work for the Metropolitan Police?)

Josh Cryer · 2006-01-06 17:27:47

I think it's silly that we'd think that people getting to Mars would be theives. Unless we start sending prisoners (which I don't see happening, ever), everyone on Mars would be wealthy scientific types, along with other pioneer types.

And here's the key, they'll be bringing everything they need, they're not going to go to Mars thinking they can steal something to get by. The only time 'theft' would be absolutely required is if something bad has happened to life support systems and one might need to steal a rebreather or something, but even in that scenario asking would probably result in getting it anyway. "I'm about to DIE, may I please borrow your rebreather until I can get mine fixed?"

Anyway, since the habitats will be totally enclosed systems, items being lost is going to be a rarity, and you'll know potential suspects rather easily. You had two guests in your hab last night, and you're missing your mini-personal-vidscreen. One of them must have it. Confrontation would be relatively simple, and getting an item returned moreso, because the thought of being thrown out an airlock isn't very pleasent.

Commodore · 2006-01-06 17:59:47

Once your population gets big enough (and it eventually will), your inevitably going to have a criminal element.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-09-12 11:20:33

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#2 2005-10-10 06:43:00

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#3 2005-10-10 18:25:35

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#4 2005-10-10 19:50:46

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#5 2005-10-11 06:07:08

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#6 2005-10-11 07:04:47

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#7 2005-10-11 07:43:42

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#8 2005-10-13 15:52:46

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#9 2005-10-13 17:27:25

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#10 2005-10-28 09:55:02

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#11 2006-01-02 09:16:08

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#12 2006-01-02 12:33:30

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#13 2006-01-02 13:13:41

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#14 2006-01-03 12:25:57

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#15 2006-01-03 13:19:02

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#16 2006-01-03 14:34:55

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#17 2006-01-03 14:44:37

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#18 2006-01-03 15:17:24

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#19 2006-01-04 09:36:09

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#20 2006-01-04 09:37:08

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#21 2006-01-04 16:36:14

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#22 2006-01-04 22:29:46

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#23 2006-01-05 09:33:37

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#24 2006-01-06 17:27:47

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

#25 2006-01-06 17:59:47

Re: Crime & civic responsibility

Board footer