Crime in Our Community

JohnOTD,

You are engaging in a conversation about a matter you do not understand. In the USVI, when your property is broken into and items are stolen, if you call the police they tell you not to lock your valuables away, so the crooks won't damage your property when they want to access your belongings. If you confront and harm a criminal while he is on your property, you will end up incarcerated in a prison that is worse than any in the states. Citizens can't trust law enforcement, because cops and judges are crooked. We don't need armed civilians or a VI cop on every corner. We need to grant law enforcement powers to the federal government, similar to those of martial law. Federal troops are the only means by which the USVI might one day become a safe place to live.

all that and then having the feds take over for a awhile down here to clean the place up,we have some decent laws down here but they are not enforced

JohnOTD,
In your response to Uttica's restaurant situation, there were too many "probably'"s for my taste. Once you have been shot dead, you are not probably dead, it's over. Also, what makes the gun toting patron qualified to assess the situation correctly? Seems to me one would need serious, extended training to be able to glance at a situation, and in a split second, decide who to shoot.

I personally think there are just too many people in too confined an area for people to go around with concealed weapons. Too many opportunities for someone to make the wrong judgement call or just make a mistake. Look at that football player that shot himself. He would have had experience in making quick decisions and obviously good reflexes, and he STILL shot himself. Then...not to mention the mental state of a whole lot of people. Numerous people out there walking around, appearing normal, even able to pass a mental evaluation, but get them a little irked, and look out!

Oh, another point, as to profiling based on how they are dressed, etc. Doesn't work here. All the kids look like hoods!;)

Juanita~ Your fears are unfounded. Look at the stats where concealed carry is encouraged and where it is more easily obtained than here. Again I ask you: are Crucians dumber than the rest of the world? Are they more hot headed than the rest of the world? Are they more violent and/or vindictive? Are you saying Crucians can't be as responsible as the rest of the world? Hmmmm

I never mentioned Crucian. Where did that come from? But, I have stayed away from the thread from the beginning, and that type of answer is why. It seems those with strong views on the subject want to attack, if even in the most benign, subtle way. I think there are too many crazy, hot-headed people in the WORLD, not just St. Croix for people to walk around with guns. My opinion. I'm not going to change your mind, nor would I try. But you're not going to change mine, either. So, I will now stay away from the thread again. You guys go for it!

Juanita, my apologies. I live on Stx so my mind set is here. I suppose you meant all Virgin Islanders. Your post seems to show a fear of American Citizens being armed to defend themselves against attackers. Do you not understand that according to the Supreme Court it is NOT the job of the police to protect you? They are there to try to decrease the risk of attack and to pick up the pieces afterwards. If you find yourself facing a villain pointing a gun at you, the police are not going to be there to help you. It is just you against him...or them. If you don't want to do the studying and practice to learn how to protect yourself, that is your right. But please do not try to take that right away from me. We are a nation of free men. We do not belong to the government.

Juanita, you asked, what makes the gun toting patron qualified to assess the situation correctly? Seems to me one would need serious, extended training to be able to glance at a situation, and in a split second, decide who to shoot. That is precisely what legal, concealed weapons carriers do. dntw8up is correct when she says the cops and the judges are crooked here. Not all, but enough that citizens don't trust them anymore. She is also correct that federal troops and a temporary federal takeover of the pathetic government here would be a good thing. But unlike the British on Turks and Caicos, the US doesn't seem to care how this place is run. Until it gets better here, we need to be able to protect ourselves.

Carrying a gun allows one the right to defend ones self, not commit murder. ANY person licensed to carry is well aware of the responsibilities a permit to carry demands.

I'd like to see more concealed permits issued to anyone in our community who is qualified to do so. I like the concept of defending ones right to walk about freely in a respectful society, and if that means that responsible people can bring order to a bunch of self-centered thieving people by carrying, then let's get to it.

antiqueone,
Last year, the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision breathed new life into the 2ND amendment, by ruling that it protected an individuals right to have a handgun "at home for self-defense". The decision in District of Columbia v. Heller struck down a local ban on handguns. the statement at home for self defense was clear. I couldn't find a Supreme Court Ruling that it is not the job of the police to protect you. Maybe you could give a cite on that statement.

Lizard here you go.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=1

You may indeed be right, dntw8up, How do we get the Fed down here?

Michael9,
Thank You!

re: Castle Rock v. Gonzales: The clear message of Gonzales bears repeating because you will not hear it elsewhere. The police have no obligation to protect individuals who, therefore, should defend themselves. The content of state laws does not matter; by Colorado State law, the police are required to "use every reasonable means to enforce a protection order." The Supreme Court has ruled and that's that.

In the wake of Gonzales, every anti-domestic violence advocate should advise victims — male or female — to learn self-defense. They should lobby for the repeal of any law or policy that hinders responsible gun ownership.

The true meaning of being anti-domestic violence means is to help victims out of their victimhood and into a position of power

JohnOTD,

You are engaging in a conversation about a matter you do not understand. In the USVI, when your property is broken into and items are stolen, if you call the police they tell you not to lock your valuables away, so the crooks won't damage your property when they want to access your belongings. If you confront and harm a criminal while he is on your property, you will end up incarcerated in a prison that is worse than any in the states. Citizens can't trust law enforcement, because cops and judges are crooked. We don't need armed civilians or a VI cop on every corner. We need to grant law enforcement powers to the federal government, similar to those of martial law. Federal troops are the only means by which the USVI might one day become a safe place to live.

You basically confirmed all of what I've been saying. "You cannot count on (or trust) the officials (be it police or judges)." If you merely harm someone breaking into your home, they will sue you and you'll have problems with the law because you used deadly force when your life wasn't threatened (If you use your firearm on an intruder but don't kill them, the courts assume your life wasn't threatened).

However, I disagree with your statement about martial law. That would be curfews (like I mentioned earlier) and cops on every corner. People would not learn to be responsible for themselves which is what's necessary.

I will state it again: The real solution is for people to take responsibility for themselves and protect their own persons and property.

You may indeed be right, dntw8up, How do we get the Fed down here?

I believe it would require nothing short of heinous violence directed at a large number of tourists, because the dollars they bring to the territory are more valuable than local lives.

The real solution is for people to take responsibility for themselves and protect their own persons and property.

This would result in lengthy terms of incarceration for many honest people.

I reiterate -- you are engaging in a conversation about a matter you do not understand. For example, you don't seem to realize that we are governed by the Revised Organic Act, not the U.S. Constitution, so local government does not fully recognize Second Amendment rights. You also seem unaware of what it is like to live in a small, isolated community, where every thug is a friend or relative of a cop or a judge, and where an honest citizen who wins a battle against a thug will lose the war, because the thug's pals will inevitably bring holyhell down on the honest individual's family. There is nowhere to go, and nobody in law enforcement to trust, so most people live in fear, and those of us who are victimized don't even bother reporting crime.

I know you are young and idealistic, but you don't live here, and it would be a mistake to think those of us who do are ignorant and haven't considered the measures you've proposed to alleviate crime.

dntw8up seems to me then society in the VI (at least) is best described as chaos with elements of tribalism.

Is there anyway short of something so horrible that the feds must take notice that can be done?

Why should such a thoroughly delightful living environment be reduced to such a state?

Why isn`t there some sort of maritime law where a distinction is made between invited & uninvited on property?

So, (can`t remember who said) lizard is not mr/mrs fuquin know it all after all!

I have a BIG problem w/ letting thieves/thugs go around w/o repercussions(isn`t that what Frenchy friends are for?)

It`s just not right to live in fear!
Yup dntw8up, I agree, send the feds!

dntw8up,

I did not mean to insinuate that islanders are ignorant, I'm not sure where I said anything like that, and if that is what was taken from any of my statements, I apologize.

However, I will restate that your statements only serve to confirm what I have been saying. You basically implied that the cops are in the pockets of the thugs which means even if you win on a legal level, you'll have thugs coming after you with no repercussions from the police (on them). That's my biggest problem with more cops.

I admit, I am a bit idealistic, but I'm young, so I think I'm allowed...right? 🙂

Back on topic, maybe bringing feds down who are not in bed with criminals is the option, but I don't think violating peoples liberties is a solution in any way. While I understand that the islands are governed by the ROA rather than the Constitution/BoR, I also understand that the Constitution/BoR don't GIVE us our liberties; they PROTECT them. The liberties spelled out in the Constitution/BoR are ones that we hold from birth. The founding documents of the US merely say "These shall not be violated". Regardless of what document governs where I live, I have certain liberties. And I think it is quite foolish to think a piece of parchment will really be honored through the generations. Just look at the government we have now and how far it has strayed from what was intended by the founding fathers.

I realize that most of that last paragraph doesn't explicitly apply to the islands. My point is this, "I have liberties that are a product of my being human, and those shall not be violated (without my consent), regardless of what paper governs the land in which I find myself."

maybe bringing feds down who are not in bed with criminals is the option, but I don't think violating peoples liberties is a solution in any way.

Our civil liberties have been violated by thugs for quite some time, so many of us would rather the feds violate our civil liberties for awhile, because we believe there is a greater likelihood that the feds will eventually return our civil liberties. We don't want more cops, we just want federal cops to replace local cops, until the criminal element has been subsumed and new personnel has been properly trained to protect our communities.

I also understand that the Constitution/BoR don't GIVE us our liberties; they PROTECT them. The liberties spelled out in the Constitution/BoR are ones that we hold from birth. The founding documents of the US merely say "These shall not be violated".

Those "documents" don't protect anything; they explicate rights afforded certain people in a certain place, and law enforcement and the judiciary compel obedience.

Regardless of what document governs where I live, I have certain liberties. ..My point is this, "I have liberties that are a product of my being human, and those shall not be violated (without my consent), regardless of what paper governs the land in which I find myself."

I can't think of a single basic right that every person enjoys regardless of where they live. You may think everyone has a right to speak their opinions, breathe clean air, drink potable water, sleep safely, refuse sexual advances, attain literacy, etc., but there are millions of people in the world who don't have any of these things, so having a right to them is meaningless.

Whatever liberties you enjoy are not a product of your being human, but of your social status and place of residence. You had the good fortune to be reared in circumstances that have made it possible for you to contemplate moving to the VI, find this forum, and express your views. You live in a country that allows you freedoms that most people can only dream about -- even folks in other first world countries. Germans are incarcerated if they send a letter to the editor of a German newspaper claiming a disbelief in the holocaust, and Brits can't legally own a handgun (they only allow 6,000 of the 142,000 cops in the country to carry a firearm.)

dntw8up~ I think you misinterpret the constitution/BoR. The rights of which JohnOTD speaks are unalienable. They are indeed rights given to us by our creator. The problem is that thugs or governments have stolen these rights in many places. That is why we don't enjoy many of the rights that are ours. Tyranny abounds everywhere, but "all men (and women, of course) are created equal."

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

dntw8up~ I think you misinterpret the constitution/BoR. The rights of which JohnOTD speaks are unalienable. They are indeed rights given to us by our creator. The problem is that thugs or governments have stolen these rights in many places.

If there were such a thing as unalienable rights, by definition they could not be "stolen" by anyone.

Adj. 1. unalienable - incapable of being repudiated or transferred to another.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unalienable

The idea that we have unalienable rights is a utopian vision, as we do not have even one right that can't be withheld from us by someone else.

" you have the right to die" However even that must be spelled out in a living will.

The point is not that, in fact, these rights are truly unalienable. Rather it is that they are not rights given to us by some government. We are not subjects of the government. The government is supposed to be subject to we, the people.

And even a living will is no guarantee that your request will be met (I'm a bioethicist and have on occasion served on ethics committees charged with determining whether health care professionals should be allowed to usurp a request in a patient's living will.)

Well so much for the unalienable rights theory! That was the last straw, I guess.

I think the point of the whole inalienable rights bit is to say that to America it is automatically "wrong" to take those rights away from a human being. Put another way, it is not the obligation of the people to demand those rights, it is the obligation of the government to recognize them. This should have served as a huge constraint as to what our government does and how they treat people but unfortunately this hasn't been the case (IMO).

As for the "does a right exist if the government doesn't recognize it" bit that's a bit like the "if a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it did it make a noise" paradox. It can be debated for years, and I will admit that practically, no a right doesn't exist if no one chooses to recognize it. However the inalienable rights theory makes those who choose to not recognize my rights "evil" as opposed to the person exercising the rights being "lucky" or "selfish" (having a hard time coming up with the perfect word for this).

JohnOTD, I am a Libertarian and understand your concern about a police state. But there is a difference between limited government and anarchy. And what we have down here is at times analagous to anarchy. This is a case where, IMO federal intervention would likely make things MUCH better off. If you spend a good deal of time on here you are likely to agree.

Sean