crime

This should not be a surprise

/ hsoi

A survey conducted by researchers from Duke University and the University of Chicago found that Chicago criminals obtained their firearms almost exclusively from friends and family.

Wait. I thought they got them all through the “gun show loophole”? Or that they got them through proper legal commerce (including 4473 form and background check) down at the sporting goods store.

The study found that due to fears of encountering undercover police officers attempting sting operations, a large majority of the criminals surveyed would only make illegal gun purchases from people they knew. “In discussing the underground gun market in their neighborhoods, most respondents emphasized the importance of connections—prior relationships that could create sufficient trust to reassure the seller that the transaction would not create an unacceptable legal risk,” the survey says. “A majority of the primary guns (40 of the 48 for which we have detailed information on the source) were obtained from family, fellow gang members, or other social connections; the fraction is still higher for secondary guns.”

Wait. This goes against everything I’ve been told about how criminals acquire guns.

But surely then they must be acquiring “assault weapons”.

The survey also found that criminals preferred handguns by a wide margin.

Um…. but….

Well, this has to be somewhere like Texas.

Chicago criminals are finicky about how they get their guns, according to a new study by the University of Chicago Crime Lab.

But Chicago has some of the toughest gun control legislation. Are you saying criminals don’t obey the law?

Well, it doesn’t matter. We still need to make things more illegaller, because (somehow) that will stop criminals from getting guns.

“Some of the pathways people are concerned about don’t seem so dominant,” [Harold Pollack, co-director of University of Chicago Crime Lab] said.

But… but…

Look folks, most any reasonable person in our society wants to see reduction in (negative) violence. What some of us have a problem with is the means by which to achieve that end. When you work to make legal pathways for obtaining guns more difficult to traverse, you are only harming law-abiding citizens – you are NOT preventing criminals from obtaining guns, you are not stopping criminals from partaking in illegal and/or violent activity.

The only people you are harming are good people.

Why are you doing that?

Either you don’t know any better and haven’t truly considered the consequences of your action, or your blindly following irrational thoughts or emotions… or harming good people is precisely what you want to do. And that, good people will not stand for.

But I prefer to think most of my fellow citizens are also good people. So folks, consider the hard data these researchers are providing. “Illegal guns” don’t come from where you think, and trotting out the same tired and failed “solutions” to “the problems of illegal guns, and ‘gun violence'” just doesn’t hold in the face of such evidence. Let’s use facts and data to help us find real solutions, shall we?

(first article, second article)

Updated 2015-09-05 – Here’s a link to the University of Chicago Crime Lab’s press release about the article.  And here’s a link to the full paper.

On witnesses

/ hsoi / 4 Comments

Recently a knife-wielding person was shot by a police officer. I’m not here to comment on the incident itself or other things people tend to comment on regarding such incidents these days.

I want to focus on what was reported from the witnesses.

Here’s the story. From that article:

In interviews with the Washington Post, two witnesses said that when encountered by police, the woman had a knife, which they described as relatively small.

The knife was “relatively small”. When you hear that, what comes to mind? Probably not some sort of Crocodile Dundee type knife, right?

One man, Gerald McBrayer, said the woman was holding “a little steak knife,” and received no warning.

Another saying it was “little”

Another man, Nathan Strickland, said she had a steak knife with what he described as a skinny” 6 to 8 inch blade.

6-8″ is pretty specific, and that’s not all that little. Or if you want to put it in context, get a ruler, measure out 6-8″, now hold that “through” your body and see just how deep 6-8″ goes — or rather, see how shallow your body is, relative to a “small knife”.

The witnesses see the same basic thing – a woman with a knife – but they assess the knife differently. Why would they assess the knife differently? Proximity? Perception? Level of life experiences? Ulterior motive? Ignorance? Misspeaking?

Note as well Mr. McBrayer said the woman received no warning.

When officers responded they found a woman who was holding at least one knife, he said. Officers told her to drop the weapon but she did not respond to their command and as the woman continued to advance, she was shot once in the upper body Taylor said.

You can also watch the video and listen:

Urgent cries are heard, apparently from bystanders. “Put the knife down,” one person shouts. “Put it down.”

A man in a T-shirt stands between the two, a little to the side, waving his arms downward, apparently calling for her to drop what she carried

Some heard no warnings, others heard warnings.

Does any of this mean the witnesses are lying? No. Could they be? Maybe. And again, I’m not commenting directly on this incident or the witnesses — I’m just using this article, as reported, as an illustration. What it does mean is witness testimony is only so valid. As I’ve touched on before, even video can only tell you so much.

You’ve probably seen this video:

Selective Attention is a real thing, and it affects witness testimony.

Again, this isn’t evaluative as a good or bad thing, that people are being bad or wrong or intentionally trying to skew things (always possible, but not always the case). It’s just something worth knowing and understanding, so witness testimony can be taken for what it is.

Again, “unarmed” doesn’t equate to “not dangerous”

/ hsoi

[Christy] Mack’s injuries included 10 broken bones, a broken nose, missing and broken teeth, a fractured rib and a severely ruptured liver from a kick to her side.

Typically when people use the term “unarmed”, they mean “doesn’t have a weapon” (knife, gun, baseball bat, screwdriver, hammer, crowbar, etc.). As if somehow that means the person couldn’t be dangerous, or couldn’t inflict severe bodily harm.

He allegedly forced her to strip naked and repeatedly punched and kicked her, breaking several of her teeth.

Look at her pictures:

That’s the sort of damage an “unarmed” person can inflict. And honestly, she’s lucky; I’ve seen worse damage at the hands of “unarmed” individuals.

So tell me again why you think “unarmed” means “not dangerous”?

(full story)

What can we learn – Thalia Heffernan

/ hsoi

A couple weeks ago, 20-year old model Thalia Heffernan was attacked on the streets of Dublin. I’m glad to hear Ms. Heffernan is doing alright. After reading her story, I think there are some important lessons we can all learn from what she went through.

I am going to refer to two stories. This one from herald.ie and this story from independent.ie.

The attack happened at 4:20 AM around the Dublin city center. Attacks can happen at any time of day and at any location. This does remind me of John Farnam’s famous quip: “Don’t go to stupid places; don’t associate with stupid people; don’t do stupid things. We will add to that, be in bed by 10 o’clock.” Ms. Heffernan didn’t appear to have too much choice tho, as it appears she was on her way to work. In such a case, it behooves us to increase our awareness of our surroundings and take greater precautions and measures to ensure our personal safety.

Especially if you’re walking alone, which it appears Ms. Heffernan was.

“No older than around 18, this young girl hit me three or more times in the face, elbowed and shoved me in an attempt to pull my backpack off my arm, while another young guy came behind me and grabbed the other side. Nearly pulling my jumper and arms with them, they ran away with everything I had.”

When people think about potential attackers, I guarantee you the gender will always be male. Society tends to view women as victims, not attackers, not aggressors. But reality is that an attacker can be anyone: male or female, young or old. You must expand your notion of who could be an attacker, else you will blind to the possibilities.

The assault was physical.

“What’s worse is that there was nothing I could do to even attempt to defend myself, despite screaming and crying after them,” she added. “I knew if I tried to fight back that it would end badly, and maybe even with me in hospital.

“Even now, a number of hours later, I’m still shaking writing this.. No matter how hard you train or how well your capable of fighting your corner, young kids in gangs like this can render you completely useless.

I’m not sure what training she had. I searched around and only found references to her being big on fitness, so maybe she just exercises a lot, but nothing gave me the impression she received any sort of self-defense or combative/martial-arts training.

If I could speak with her, I’d like to inquire about “there was nothing I could do to even attempt to defend myself”. There sure is a lot you can do to defend yourself, because screaming and crying certainly isn’t effective. What I wonder is about her mindset. Has she ever considered in her 20 years of life that someone might want to attack her? Has she ever contemplated what she would do in response? Has she taken steps to enable a useful response? Too many people walk through life never considering that bad things might happen to them, and taking steps that could help them address that situation. Have you ever stopped to think about yourself? And what have you done to address it? Denial doesn’t count.

Regarding her last sentence, she elaborates:

“They’re ruthless and will do anything to get what they want. I don’t understand how anyone could ever even consider doing that to another person. I hope I can help the gardai in identifying at least some of them, and eventually have them all pay for what they’ve done not only to me but countless others.”

“I don’t understand how anyone could ever even consider doing that to another person”.

Let that sink in.

You have to know, there are 7 billion people in this world and I guarantee most of them do not think like you.  There are some people in this world that think so far distant from you that yes you cannot consider nor fathom how someone could be that way. But that doesn’t mean such people don’t exist. Just watch the news every day, and you’ll see countless stories of deviant behavior. The best thing we can do is acknowledge such people do exist, that there are horrible people out there that are ruthless and will do anything to get what they want — including destroying you and not caring one bit.

So what are you going to do about it?

Because another key take-away from this event? The only help the police (the gardai) can give is possible hope of catching the attackers after the fact. No one was around to help her. The only person that could have come to her aid, was herself.

Now, the catwalk queen who has travelled the world alone for her work, says she will take more caution when travelling alone

“I just wasn’t expecting it to happen to me – you never think it would happen to yourself en route to work,” she added of the incident, which Gardai are investigating.

I’ve always been quite an independent person, I travel alone a lot, I’m on my own quite often – after that, I definitely am a bit shook.

“I’ll be a bit more cautious and careful.”

Again, she lived never expecting, never acknowledging such a thing could happen. And when it did, all she could do was be astonished and a victim, instead of meeting the violence and making it stop.

I hope that being “more cautious and careful” will translate over into actually taking greater steps to help herself when violence again comes her way. We all need a wake-up call to the realities of the world, I hope this is hers and she uses the lessons wisely. I hope you can too.

We need to understand violence

/ hsoi

Wim Demeere wrote an excellent piece about The death of common sense regarding violence.

It starts right off:

We live in an age where having knowledge about how violence actually works is frowned upon. Having experience with it is viewed even worse.

So very true. It’s sad tho. We love to go on about how “knowledge is power”, the importance of education, and look down upon ignorance. Yet, when it comes to issues of violence, people prefer ignorance.

I get it. Violence is ugly and something we would rather not deal with. However the ugly truth is violence exists, has always, will always, and the simple fact that the more you know about it the more you can contend with it (including avoiding it and not becoming a victim of it), the better off you’ll be. Again, knowledge is power.

Wim continues discussion of how we got to this point, because it wasn’t very long ago that one was actually expected to know how to fight and how to contend with violence. That doesn’t mean you’re out to start it, but it does mean you know how to deal with it when it crosses your path.

Now granted, that we’ve reduced a “need” for violence in society shows progress. We have become more peaceful, more civil. This is actually a good sign. However the converse is that it comes at the expense of ignorance. And if we continue to be ignorant, then we will eventually fall victim. All progress toward our “peaceful societal growth” stops and likely regresses.

Wim presents a perfect example of this ignorance, of this regression.

Have you see that cell phone case that looks like a gun? If not, click through to Wim’s article to see it.

It’s not just stupid, it’s dangerous and likely going to get the owner in trouble (or even killed).

Does that mean you have to let everything slide? No, of course not. Some things are worth fighting and dying for. But a truckload of things are not and in this age of social justice warriors and internet wisdom, that seems to have been lost. When it comes to violence, common sense is dying at an ever increasing rate. When you look at the comments on the internet about this cellphone case, the “it’s my right!” crowd is extremely well represented. Contrast that with those in law enforcement, the military and the other professions where violence is a daily occurrence: they all see what a potential for disaster this case is.

If you don’t understand why this case is a bad idea, I’ll be happy to inform you.

If after that you still wish to carry such a case, you’re welcome to. You just cannot be surprised if you suffer the consequences of your poor choice.

And the death of accepting responsibility for yourself (and your poor choices) is also happening, but that’s another discussion.

It is important for us to understand violence. It’s like anything else in this world: the more we can know about it, the more we can understand it, the more we can make rational and reasoned choices and decisions regarding matters involving it. That doesn’t make you a bad person, that doesn’t mean you’ll be a dangerous person, that doesn’t mean you will go on a killing spree. No, it just means you’re an educated person, and that ought to help make the world a bit better.

Does video tell the whole truth?

/ hsoi

I enjoy it when my disparate interests overlap in some way. In this case, powerlifting and personal safety.

In recent years, especially the past some months, it’s become a hot topic to have police body cameras. Basically, people want recordings of every facet of police interactions. This is understandable as it generally works to protect all involved because “video doesn’t lie”.

But does video tell the whole truth?

In powerlifting, squat depth is a big deal. To oversimplify, a legitimate squat is one where your thighs are parallel to the ground, or deeper (e.g your butt touches your heels). People putting massive weights on their back and only moving them about 3 inches then claiming awesomeness — that’s not legit. All sorts of videos come out of lifters making “world record squats”, and the first thing people do is gripe if the lifter squatted to depth or not. Granted some squats (and meet judging) are legitimately up for question, but most often the squat is passed by the meet judges but not the Internet armchair judges — because of the video.

The video may be poor. The video may be at a “wrong” angle. The video isn’t likely to see and reproduce what the 3 meet judges see.

And this could be good, this could be bad. It could give you the proper perspective, or it could give you the wrong perspective.

Is the video lying?

Is the video telling the (whole) truth?

What got me thinking about this was the recent posting of the dashcam video of a controversial police interaction. Commenters took the video as objective proof. Interestingly, some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the right, and some commenters took it as objective proof the cop was in the wrong.

Objective?

I thought back to the endless debates on powerlifting videos about their “objectivity”, because if video was in fact objective, if video told the Truth, there should be no debate about someone’s squat depth. But yet there is.

Back in 2014, the well-respected Force Science Institute published a list of “10 Limitations of body cams you need to know for your protection”. Original PDF here, article reprint here. You should read the article for a complete explanation, but here are the 10 points:

  1. A camera doesn’t follow your eyes or see as they see.
  2. Some important danger cues can’t be recorded.
  3. Camera speed differs from the speed of life.
  4. A camera may see better than you do in low light.
  5. Your body may block the view.
  6. A camera only records in 2-D.
  7. The absence of sophisticated time-stamping may prove critical.
  8. One camera may not be enough.
  9. A camera encourages second-guessing.
  10. A camera can never replace a thorough investigation.

I know some are going to read that list, especially because the article is titled “for your [police] protection”, assume there’s bias and these are just trying to give police “outs”, and then dismiss the article.

So let’s go back and look at this list in the context of powerlifting videos.

The camera does not follow the eyes of the judges nor does the camera see what the judges see. There may be bodies blocking the view (happens all the time when the video comes from audience members and there are lots of burly guys crowding around the squatter to spot the lift). One camera isn’t enough, when there are 3 judges precisely to judge multiple angles. Cameras only record in 2-D, and if you’ve seen some powerlifters, these guys are certainly bulging out in many places. Cameras certainly encourage second-guessing (look at all the armchair judges).

It doesn’t matter what you’re filming, these limitations apply.

We must also remember that these videos are often interpreted through the bias of the viewer.

Let’s go back to squat depth. Brandon Morrison wrote an article examining the rulebook of 10 powerlifting federations to compare how they defined legal squat depth. What you find is while everyone strives for the same basic idea, there’s a lot of variance in definition.

One thing that will be the same across all feds is the fact that the line which separates the champ from the chump, the white lights from the red lights and 9/9 from bombing out is an imaginary and invisible line whose axis through disputed points is in the heads of the three individual judges who preside over your lift. No, it’s not perfect; it’s subjective. Deal with it.

Emphasis added.

Often the armchair judges insert their own interpretation of the rules or what they feel is right or wrong. A great example is Shao Chu’s 400# bench press:

Is that a legit bench press? Sure is, because it’s within the rules of the game. But hopefully even if you don’t know much about lifting weights you can see why that lift might be considered controversial (was it even a lift? did the bar even move?).

And so it goes with police interactions, because everyone is a lawyer and legal expert, right? And even if you know the law, do you know all the laws? That video may have been filmed in a different city, in a different state, in a different country, where laws are different from what you may know. As well, do you know the police’s operating procedure and rules and regulations they must abide by (beyond the law)?

When you view the video, are you viewing it through an objective lens, or the lens of your personal bias, (lack of) experience, and/or (lack of) knowledge? I hate to tell you, but it’s probably the latter no matter how much you strive for it (or believe it to be) the former. Doesn’t matter if it’s a dashcam video or a powerlifting video.

I think video is a good thing. I think video is a solid tool towards helping us preserve history and protect ourselves. Given the proliferation of cameras, either because our governments are putting more out “on the streets” or simply because everyone’s got a smartphone in their pocket, we’re going to see more and more video and relying more on video to help us find Truth.

But in doing so, we must take video for what it is. It is not The One Source, it is not (unbiased) Truth. It has limitations, and we must remember that in our quest for Truth.

Better to fight back than to do nothing

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

This was a refreshing piece to see reported in the mainstream news.

Austin NBC affiliate KXAN posted an article, Fighting for your life in an active shooter situation.

SAN MARCOS, Texas (KXAN) — Theaters, malls and schools are places you’re not supposed to be afraid of. But none are immune to active shooter situations.

Experts with Texas State University’s Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Program (ALERRT) say they don’t want people to live in fear but to understand these situations can happen. By taking a few minutes to think how you would react right now, may save your life later.

The article starts right off acknowledging the reality. And even better, suggesting that a little bit of forethought would be a wise and potentially life-saving action.

This is refreshing to see!

“It’s natural to be scared, everybody is scared when someone’s trying to cause them harm,” said ALERRT executive director, Pete Blaire. “Our first recommendation is to avoid the attacker, if you can do that. If for some reason you can’t, deny access to your location, keep them from getting to you. And that defending yourself is the last resort.”

Open spaces, like a movie theater, leave you with the fewest options. ALERRT trainers say it’s alright to duck down, but don’t stay put.

“One thing we don’t want to see you do is what we call ‘hide and hope.’ Which is where someone hides behind something and hopes the shooter doesn’t find them. If the shooter does find you, doesn’t leave many options,” said Blaire.

This is all solid stuff. The suggested course of action is essentially: “Run. Hide. Fight”. About 3 years ago the City of Houston with funds from DHS created an excellent video on that course of action. It’s becoming the mantra for dealing with active shooter events, and with good reason. Yes I know, you’ve got your CHL and you’re just ready to save the day. Well, we all draw our lines in different places in terms of what we will and won’t be willing to die for, and how context and personal situation matter. Whatever your decision, just determine your line ahead of time and be well-prepared to execute your plan.

The article continues:

He says if it does come down to defending yourself, better to fight back than to do nothing.

Blaire teaches people to grab a hold of the gun and get it pointed away from you.

He says when you’re fighting for your life, you don’t have to fight fairly.

And this is such a great thing to see printed in the mainstream media. That it’s better to fight back than to do nothing. Or to more clearly phrase this: it’s better to fight back than to die… better to fight back than to be murdered… better to fight back than be executed. Yeah, fighting back is no guarantee you’ll live, but not fighting back is a fair assurance you’ll die. At least for me, I choose to live.

I also like that KXAN was willing to print that you don’t have to fight fair! It’s reasonable for people to expect fairness and to abide by some sort of “code” of behavior/ethics. And usually people expect others in society to have some sort of “code” as well, and that likely our codes are somewhat in the same ballpark. Realize that if someone is trying to kill you, they have demonstrated they do not have the same code as you; they may have some code, but it’s nothing like yours. There is nothing to say they will “fight fair”, and essentially that means you have to be willing to fight “unfair”. It’s the sort of thing where it’s considered bad form to hit a guy in the crotch, but an active shooter situation is not a time to practice gentlemanly manners, y’know? You need to give yourself permission ahead of time that should you find yourself in an active shooter situation, you allow yourself to do whatever it takes to come out alive.

What really got me about the article? The closing statement:

Right now, ALERRT only trains law enforcement, but has recently partnered with a company to bring the training to the public.

KXAN will keep you posted on when that training begins.

They will keep us posted when such training for the public begins.

It’s great to see the mainstream media supporting and encouraging activities to help people stay alive and stay safe.

Statistical filter

/ hsoi / 1 Comment

People tend to love data, especially if they can use (twist?) it to back up their emotional appeals to further things towards their desired ends.

Hey, we all do it.

The trick for the listener is to sift through everything and truly see the data for what it is, not what someone wants to present.

So to that, well… I’d reblog this if there was a way, but as a posting on Facebook the best I can do is copy/paste it. This was posted by Marc MacYoung here:

In a thread about gun control, the old saws about the victims being children, women and targets of racism came up. Here’s some things to think about…
***

Here are some raw, baseline — and indisputable — facts about violence that spin-doctors tend to deep six. (As they should because they undermine the credibility of the agenda-group’s message.)

An overwhelming majority of violence occurs between people who know each other. (Killing a stranger is exceedingly rare.)

An overwhelming majority of violence is committed by a member of a race on someone of his/her own race. Violence between different races is rare — except robbery.

A large — if not overwhelming — majority of homicide ‘victims’ have criminal records (and are themselves engaged in criminal lifestyles or illegal activities)

An overwhelming majority of homicide perpetrators have criminal records and are actively engaged in criminal lifestyle or illegal activities)

(Note and distinction — a criminal lifestyle means literally crime is their profession. They make their living off it. [e.g., a drug dealer]. This as opposed to someone who is doing something that is illegal [e.g., buying drugs])

Criminal enterprises — especially drug dealing — commonly involve teens and even children (under 12) as part of their ‘crew.’ (In other words, the ‘children’ killed by guns are often gangmembers and drug dealers.)

Men are more likely to be the ~cough cough~ victims of physical violence than women. With the following caveats…

Women are far less likely to become physically violent with a stranger, but are AS likely (although some argue more likely) to become physically violent within family/ relationship.

So where women are as likely to be victims as men are in domestic situation, BUT they are just as likely to be the perpetrators. (I have a saying that before someone can be certified as an expert in the subject of domestic violence they should be required to live in a trailer park for a year.)

Where women ARE the leading ‘victims’ of physical assault is when it comes to rape. But with the current redefinition of rape to include drunk sex — technically speaking men are being raped at a higher rate. (Granted that’s not how it’s being legally interpreted, but drunk and unable to give consent is not sex/gender specific.)

Rape has a legal precedence of being deemed ‘Grievous bodily injury’ — thereby justifying use of lethal force.

Now, these ‘facts’ are available, but you have to dig — I mean REALLY dig.

Because simply stated, a lot of the times questions (that would reveal these) are deliberately not asked in studies/statistics that are going for a specific answer. Answers to support particular agendas. Oddly enough, in studies where they are, the common response to claim the study is biased, unreliable and agenda driven. (How do they manage not to choke on the irony?)

That’s why when people start with the women, children and race aspects of gun control I have to hold up my hand and say “Wait a minute…” because this is the stuff they’re leaving out. Starting with the fact that we have an armed professional criminal class in this country. (The good news is they prefer shooting each other over civilians.)

Spend some time looking up this data at the FBI Uniform Crime Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Again, it takes digging and you’ll often find only fragments here and there. But when you put the pieces together, you’ll find that things are WAY different than what the agenda pushers are selling.

UCR
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr
BJS
http://bjs.gov/

So, take it for what you will.

One thing that sprung to my mind after reading Marc’s posting was something Tom Givens trots out.

Tom likes to point out that you’ve got about a 1-in-150 chance of being the victim of a violent crime. Tom uses numbers taken from those above same sources. If you look at Tom’s number through the filter of Marc’s information, the average law-abiding citizen doesn’t have a 1-in-150 — their chances are much less; 1-in-300? 1-in-1000?  1-in-10,000? I can’t say, but certainly not 1-in-150. And if you’re a member of that criminal class, your chances are much higher; 1-in-15 maybe? Again I can’t say.

Granted, Tom is simplifying to make a point, because whatever the actual chances are, it’s still a likely event.

But however you look at it, and whomever is presenting data – even people “on your side” – it’s wise to dig deeper.

US city violence is spiking

/ hsoi

CHICAGO — Police departments across the U.S. that have spent years boasting about plummeting crime numbers are now scrambling to confront something many agencies have not seen in decades: more bloodshed.

Houston, St. Louis, New Orleans and Baltimore have all seen significant spikes in the number of homicides this year. The totals are up in other cities, too, including New York and Chicago.

“We’re in scary territory,” said Peter Scharf, a professor at Louisiana State University who tracks homicides in New Orleans.

Full story.

Take it for whatever it’s worth. And of course, people are going to want to point fingers as to the reason. And I bet whatever reason you trot out, it’ll be aligned with your biases and agendas. IMHO there’s not enough information yet to definitively say why we’re seeing a spike. But face facts: we are seeing a spike.

And really, while “why?” matters to some extent, in many regards it doesn’t. Because does it matter why someone is sticking a gun in your face? Or does it matter that someone is sticking a gun in your face? Does it matter why this dude wants to kill you, or that some dude is trying to kill you?

So while the politicians try to sort out why, while they try to agenda push, while they point fingers… what are you going to do to keep yourself safe?

First Step – Close the door!

/ hsoi / 2 Comments

Austin Police Department reports that garage burglaries are on the rise.

Since March, police say they have responded to 44 burglaries from garages being left open.

Most of the burglaries have happened in the South Austin area during the day.

“The trend that we’re seeing is there’s folks driving through the neighborhood,” said Axel Goldman with the Austin Police Department. “They basically get to window shop in your garage when the garage door’s wide open. They’ll make a pass or two just kind of taking inventory. Then they’ll pull up within seconds and they’re in your garage taking whatever they want, running back dumping it in the vehicle and taking off.”

So what’s the key problem?

PEOPLE LEAVING THEIR GARAGE DOORS OPEN!

There’s a simple solution:

CLOSE YOUR GARAGE DOOR!

I see this in my own neighborhood and have even spoken with my neighbors about it. Yet some still leave their garage doors open at all times of the day and night.

As APD states, they drive by, maybe a couple times, then pull up, grab what they want, then quickly bail out. You’ll probably never know until you go looking for something in the garage and you can’t find it. It’ll be a hard crime to stop as well, at least once it’s in progress. So why not stop it before it starts BY KEEPING YOUR GARAGE DOOR CLOSED!

The article has other good and useful suggestions, so do give them a read and heed.