"Police May Stop Responding To Some Crimes" (Palm Bay FL, population 100k)

[jody]

Police May Stop Responding To Some Crimes

PALM BAY, Fla. -- A budget crunch in Palm Bay could mean city residents who forget to secure car doors or close garages will get only a case number and nothing in terms of a visit by patrol officers if something is stolen.

The possible policy revision is part of a wider cost-cutting look at the Palm Bay Police Department's $20 million annual budget, Local 6 News partner Florida Today reported.

"We're looking very seriously at the types of calls we would go to," Palm Bay Police Chief Bill Berger said. "Still, about 85 to 90 percent of the people who've had their cars broken into left the car doors open. But, obviously, if it's an actual break-in, we'll respond."

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Also under review will be whether officers who take home marked patrol cars will need to pay for their own gas or reimburse the city about 50 cents for every mile driven away from work.

Want to bet police respond to calls in wealthy neighborhoods?

SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal problem :shrug: and jody adds “if you are not one of the elite.”

[tularetom]

1. I was told a long time ago by our local sheriff we were on our own because

we live in such an isolated area. Of course this is the same sheriff that chewed my ass and threatened to throw me in jail after I shot a guy in the ass with a pellet gun after I caught him stealing my chain saw.

[the_real_38]

7. nice shot ...

n/t

[iverglas]

2. is there some kind of point here?

Police in Toronto stopped responding to car break-ins some years ago, as I discovered when my car was broken into in downtown Toronto outside the quite upscale hotel I was staying in. With all the doors locked. Which was why they had to smash the window.

Just like the rest of the plebs, I got to schlep down to 52 division and file my report, so I could make an insurance claim. (I handed the counter cop the ticket I'd been issued for overstaying my Saturday morning welcome, while the trusty Toyota van sat there with its shattered window and glass all over the sidewalk, for the location shown to be entered in the report. The other counter cop snatched it and said "they gave you a ticket??" and disposed of it. As I'd hoped.)

My sister lived in downtown Toronto surrounded by yuppies in $3/4 million houses with kids named things like Lucy and Edmund. When their cars got broken into (commonly for the spiffy sunglasses they left sitting on the dash), off they went to 52 Division -- or not being out-of-towners with a ticket like me, they probably just phoned it in.


So --

SCOTUS says self-defense is a personal problem :shrug: and jody adds “if you are not one of the elite.”

-- what the fucking fuck is this about anyway? People who leave their car doors open need to have guns because when they find the stuff stolen 12 hours later the police won't make home visits to take the report??

Cripes. What side of the looking glass am I on here? That string of verbiage doesn't even make sense.

[gorfle]

3. I think the point here is...

-- what the fucking fuck is this about anyway? People who leave their car doors open need to have guns because when they find the stuff stolen 12 hours later the police won't make home visits to take the report??

I think the point here is that due to budget constraints some people won't be getting as much police service as they used to.

It's logical to wonder where this might ultimately lead, and what the implications are for one's personal safety, especially if your plan for your personal safety involves relying on the police.

[iverglas]

5. nah, sorry, that's not a point

Just saying "police service", well, you know: no.

"It's logical to wonder where this might ultimately lead, and what the implications are for one's personal safety, especially if your plan for your personal safety involves relying on the police."

WATCH OUT!!

You'll be needing this.



http://www.fstdt.com/winace/pics/index.htm

[cabluedem]

9. I think the point is that they feel they can now shoot at people who are taking property...

..as if that makes killing people over inanimate objects makes killing people "right":eyes:

[jeepnstein]

10. I know lots of folks...

who always thought that was the way things worked. "He's stealing my gas dabgummit! Let's see how he likes "ole Betsy". I just don't see using deadly force over a property crime. I recently watched a guy get sent to prison for killing a kid over a bale of straw, dumbest tragedy I ever witnessed all the way around.

Now things become different when it's some tweaker tearing your back door off at three o'clock in the morning. Or maybe someone trying to steal your car while you're driving it. Once they pass that threshold of using force to commit their crime, to quote Elmer Fudd, "WABBIT SEASON!" The good news is that kind of crime is still relatively rare.

I really wish the State of Ohio would spend some of my tax money spreading the word about what the Castle Doctrine actually says. Stuff can be replaced.

[cabluedem]

11. We agree. I can see using deadly force on intruders or car jackers. Its the nutballs like that....

fellow who killed another person over a bail of hay that makes me wonder about the sanity of some humans.

[jeepnstein]

12. He wasn't a nut.

The shooter was just an every day farmer. A fine fellow who worked hard every day to keep his place running. He swears it was a "warning shot". The only problem with that is after the rifle was tested it was shooting about 25 feet low at 200 yards. Whoops, it didn't just go over their heads like he intended. I seriously doubt he could have made the shot if he meant to but that doesn't matter a bit. Someone died because of his reckless disregard for their safety. Too bad, so sad, but he can't put the bullet back in the gun now. Nice people can sometimes make terrible choices.

Rights come with responsibilities.

[cabluedem]

13. 200 yards is well under the range of most rifles I believe. Too bad he didnt shoot to one side of ..

the thief as well, not that I sm condoning a warning shot. Too many variables to take a risk like that with a deadly weapon. Well, at least he will have to pay for his unfortunate mistake.

[jeepnstein]

14. He shouldn't have shot at all.

That's the lesson to be learned from the ruins of this tragedy. It was completely unnecessary.

[cabluedem]

16. Of course he should not have shot, but since he did shoot directly above the victim he insured that

drop in elevation would have hit the thief. Shooting at an upward angle can be deadly, indeed.

A long while back now a rice farmer out here shot to scare of some wild ducks away from his rice field and his rifle bullet struck and killed a fishermen fishing in a canal a over a half mile away.

Needless to say he didn't even know it had occurred until the sheriff's office did some trajectory plots and investigations, then they arrested him for negligent manslaughter, a few days later.

[tburnsten]

17. Why a rifle, why?

When there are perfectly adequate, actually, better than adequate specialty shotgun shells made specifically for scaring off animals without harming them? Like the different "bird bombs" and other screaming, whistling shells, they couldn't hurt someone without extreme, more or less mentally retarded levels of negligence.


Sad story, it's too bad someone had to pay for a fool who just didn't take the time to get the right tool for the task at hand.

[iverglas]

15. we may draw the line slightly differently

but I'm pleased to see you draw it on the same side of the line as I do. ;)

(And keep in mind you're talking about the *real* "castle doctrine", and not that thing they've cooked up out of snake oil and eye of Newt in places like Florida.)

Until next week ...

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

22. So can dirtbags.

[Turbo Teg]

18. Well, if you don't want to be shot

over an inanimate object, don't try to steal it. Kinda like don't steal copper wire from the power company because it MAY KILL YOU. Living a life of crime, especially for a robber/burgaler etc, is a very dangerous one, as it should be. If more criminals were killed in the middle of a robbery/burglary whatever, then maybe more will think before they act, or possibly be taken out of the picture. I don't understand why so many people want ot coddle criminals.

[Scout]

19. maybe because they have the same rights as the rest of us?

innocent until proven guilty, not be deprived of life without due process, you know, silly shit like that

:eyes:

[one-eyed fat man]

21. huh?

Let me see if I follow your reasoning. You catch someone RED-HANDED taking your stuff and you presume he is innocent?

What? Is he taking a survey of tractors and tools in your barn?

Inspecting the tarnish on your great-grandmother's silver tea service?

Engaging in a little wealth redistribution without waiting for a government program?

I guess you think we should admire his initiative for improving his standard of living during these economic hard times.

I am sorry, I am just unable to be a sanguine as you about anyone simply taking anything I worked to get. Out here in the country most folks would offer to introduce a thief to a high county official. He'd have one opportunity to choose which one, the sheriff or the coroner. Whether or not the use of deadly force is justified varies on the state and the circumstances, but you can bet your sweet ass the law presumes that a stranger standing in your kid's bedroom at 3 in the morning ain't there to borrow a cup a sugar.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

23. A criminal in my house poses an imminent threat to my family, criminals forfeit their rights.

A criminal in my house is definitely there with bad intentions and will be dealt with accordingly. If he lives (doubtful), then he and the cops can worry about his rights. I'm sure not going to worry about his rights.

David

[tburnsten]

25. Hmm. Law enforcement deals with innocence/guilt

victims of crime and home invasinos have to deal with some dude in their home, who they don't know, and didn't invite in, and is a threat to their safety until he is in custody. I think you can safely assume that a total stranger who doesn't respond to your command to "freeze" is a threat and should be treated accordingly.


No one is talking about going out and killing people after the crime has occured, which your post seems to be talking about, we are talking about a person protecting their life and the lives of their family against an intruder.

[MicaelS]

26. Individuals are NOT the Legal System

You can make a citizens arrest, that you can do. You CAN use deadly force to defend your life, or the lives of other. Depending on the state, you CAN use deadly force to protect property. You cannot put someone on trial in a court, try them, sentence them and punish them. You have no responsibility to provide counsel.

The attitude you portray is a perfect example of why the Left cannot connect more with the working and middle classes. You worry too much about the criminal class, and too little about the working and middle classes who work hard, pay their taxes and don't break the law. Successful working and middle class people are the backbone of a Democratic Society. Criminals only drag a society down to the level of barbarism.

[spin]

4. At least you can own a gun in Florida...

and you can use it to defend your life.

The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others.

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
http://www.gunlaws.com/FloridaCastleDoctrine.htm

[yodoobo]

6. People call the cops for open garage doors?

Must be a regional thing.

I would never even consider it a problem, unless i saw people in ski masks carrying things out or something.

[one-eyed fat man]

8. who says they will come to anything?

April 17, 2008 a Columbus, OH business owner went to investigate an alarm at his place of business. Suspecting a false alarm he went inside and discovered a burglar. Being a CHL he drew his gun and ordered the intruder to the ground. Then he called 911 and there begins a tale!

The business owner exhibited great restraint in not shooting the thug. The 911 dispatcher was incredibly obtuse and wasted nearly five minutes with idiotic questions before telling the business owner he called the "wrong" police department. It was several more minutes before the cops arrived an the thug managed to escape while the business owner was being distracted by the 911 dispatcher.

The details and surveillance video here. http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5621

The thug was NOT shot and while police claim to know his identity he hasn't been arrested.

[Turbo Teg]

24. Well good for him. That's his buisness.

When you break into my home, you check your rights at the door.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[one-eyed fat man]

27. Woman killed in police station parking lot.......

while ON THE PHONE with 911. Do you need any more examples that 911 is simply government-sponsored dial-a-prayer?

Too bad she couldn't have dialed .357 S&W!

http://www.foxnews.com/video-search/m/21003250/chilling_call.htm?q=chilling+call