Who's the criminal?

[observer]

The Delhi paper announces that volunteers will be doing a blitz - to check if car doors are unlocked, or keys are in sight, or valuables left where they can be seen. They then have a brochure where they check off your "infractions" - quote from the newspaper article- and leave it on your windshield.

I know the intent is good - BUT it really bothers me that trusting, innocent or distracted people can be "guilty" of "infractions" for actually doing nothing WRONG - except making it easier to be victimized by the bad guys.

When does the onus go back on the thieves instead of the victims?

[howie]

It is up to you to protect your property if after the thousands of times the police have said "lock your valuables" and you continue to leave valuables, in plain sight, in your unlocked car then you are fair game for the criminal.

[tom278]

And when are the criminals going to be fair game for the cops??

[howie]

And when are the criminals going to be fair game for the cops??

When they are caught being criminals.

[observer]

I just resent being made to feel that I'm the wrong doer - if I don't lock my car, for example. I suppose it's my fault because I created a temptation for the thief; it's not HIS fault for being a thief.

[howie]

These are the days we live in. I grew up on a two lane Norfolk St. in Simcoe and we never even thought of having to lock the doors to the house. I now live on Hwy 24 and when I go out to my back yard to cut the grass etc. I always lock the front door.

[observer]

I understand that. I just don't LIKE the inference that I am somehow responsible for my own misfortune, if something gets stolen from me. I still abide by the thought that it is the CRIMINAL who is responsible - not me!

[retired2]

I agree with ob, we are the ones made to feel like the bad guy. I use a portable GPS and hate have to put it away everytime we stop for and hour or 2. Even if you lock your car you are suppose to hide everything in the car. We also lock the house when working in the back yard

[observer]

Thanks for the vote of agreement, retired. I don't deny the WISDOM of doing all those things - but I'll be dam*ed if I'm going to lock my doors when I'm outside at home. Phone rings - I'm at the front door - which I can't enter cause it's locked - cause I started out in the back yard. C'mon!!! Yes - things happen - BAD things happen - but don't make ME feel responsible that they happened to me. I'm just trying to live a comfortable life!

[howie]

Carry a key. Don't be a victim.

[Rick Wisson]

I agree with you also OB , why should a trusting person be made out to be a bad person. Sure you can lock your car a 100 times forget once and you are deemed a carless person. Sorry to say the other comments are true. Also sorry to say some not all thieves are folks you know.

[Ruby Tuesday]

You are still required in the eyes of the law to "take all necessary reasonable precautions". That means lock your doors.

Yes, it stinks, but it's the way the world is now so you have to do your part to protect your family's personal effects.

[observer]

If the law says that you have to do that - or you share in the responsibility - then the law needs to be reformed!!! Truly, I'm not sure that that is the law as regards to theft and robbery. For example, if a store keeper can't afford a security system (which could be deemed a necessary and reasonable precaution) and has a break in - I don't think that precludes him from seeking prosecution of the criminal. NOW - he MIGHT have problems with his insurance company - but not the law, I don't think.

[observer]

I have no problem, personally, with taking most reasonable steps to protect MYSELF against "the bad guys". My OBJECTION is in making the victimized be re-victimized if a moment's inattention - for whatever reason - results in them being victimized by a criminal - and then "sharing the blame" because they didn't properly protect themselves. It MAY WELL BE the world we live in - but dam* it - it's STILL the criminals who are responsible - not the victims!

[retired2]

Right again ob. I hate to have to lock my car but still have to hide the gps while I'm away from the car because they will break a window to get it. But if some one breaks into your home they do not want you to use force to get rid of them but call 911 instead. A cop will show up within 24 hours

[rbw]

In Texas Florida and several other states you can protect you person
and property with Smith & Wesson, I think some times that is a good thing...

If you try it here , even if you absolved of criminal wrong doing you
would go broke from the legal fees..

[Ruby Tuesday]

I have no problem, personally, with taking most reasonable steps to protect MYSELF against "the bad guys". My OBJECTION is in making the victimized be re-victimized if a moment's inattention - for whatever reason - results in them being victimized by a criminal - and then "sharing the blame" because they didn't properly protect themselves. It MAY WELL BE the world we live in - but dam* it - it's STILL the criminals who are responsible - not the victims!

I do not quite understand that post.

[observer]

It's sorta like if I get out of my car after shopping - and have a bunch of purchases in it - and I have an SUV - so there ISN"T even a trunk to hide them in; and I punch the button on the remote to lock it - BUT, accidentally hit the wrong button - and do the UNLOCK instead; and go on my way - to discover later that I've been robbed of all my new purchases - - - and I report the theft - - - I WILL PROBABLY be held partly responsible because I didn't lock my car. Victimized a second time, by the system - because I'll be chastised for not taking proper precautions.

I just don't like when innocent victims - sometimes naïve - sometimes careless - have either the law or the media say or infer that they, the victim, are partly responsible. I want the responsibility to lie at the foot of the perpetrator of the crime!!!! - and not to be one iota shared by the person who was victimized.

[retired2]

A thief has more rights in your home then you do. Shot one while he is robbing you and he can sue you. Anyone see something wrong with this???

[Sponsored content]