Crime Index in Maine (Bangor, Orono: tenant, college, live in)

[Revi]

Crime is definitely on the increase here in Central Maine. Our town is getting a little better because they installed cameras in the downtown area and caught a few of the criminals, but we keep our doors and cars locked now. They seem to be moving on to other areas that are easier pickings. There is an uptick in crime in Farmington now, and some of the people involved came from around here. On Halloween night 3 guys pretended to be trick or treaters, gained entry into a house, took the wife hostage and had the husband empty his ATM accounts. Pretty creepy. That's why I think people in rural areas should be careful too. It's not the same as it was, but with a locked door it's a lot harder for a criminal to get in.

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/h...011-11-02.html

[michael_atw]

Originally Posted by Zymer

Of course under-reporting occurs, I think I only reported one criminal act perpetrated against me- mainly because I wasn't present and needed the police report for the insurance claim. The others weren't reported because I came out on top and I didn't feel that anything more needed to be done, not to mention the hassle that *I* would have had to go through.

However, you should take note that I did *not* "hypothetically jack up the rate", I intentionally said "even if we use the 'official' stats, while merely noting that they could be lower than actual. No 'jacking up'.

There was no reason to note they are lower than actual. It's a given, since all across the board they can be considered lower than actual. Which means all numbers are relatively lower - which means relatively to each other, no change occurs if we assume all have the same asterisk of underreporting.

I see you found no response for the stats I posted. That's fine, I will hope you've gathered information and altered your perceptions accordingly.

[mensaguy]

Originally Posted by michael_atw

There was no reason to note they are lower than actual. It's a given, since all across the board they can be considered lower than actual. Which means all numbers are relatively lower - which means relatively to each other, no change occurs if we assume all have the same asterisk of underreporting.

I see you found no response for the stats I posted. That's fine, I will hope you've gathered information and altered your perceptions accordingly.

Zymer may not even have seen what you posted. He's often not able to check the forum for a few days. Once he was off for over 6 months, and your post was only yesterday.

[Coaster]

Originally Posted by michael_atw

Cite your source that claims that in Great Britain most burglaries occur when owners are present.

Burglars are opportunists. They go for the easiest path between two points. Unoccupied homes are robbed because it is easier to get away with it. Burglars who are looking for quick money have no interest in screwing with people or dealing with the side-consequences of tenants or residents.

I am anti-gun control but I know there is no direct correlation between lax gun laws and safety. Maine is safer because it is rural, 'off the beaten path', and overwhelmingly white. As I stated earlier, burglars are opportunists and when combined with an urge for a quick fix and/or being flat broke they will not study the gun laws of a community in order to find the most gun-free zone to rob. That's silly rhetoric.

I don't argue that guns prevent burglaries, just alter the way they are committed.

An Englishman's home is his dungeon - Telegraph

But the trouble is that this kind of burglary - the kind most likely to go "wrong" - is now the norm in Britain. In America, it's called a "hot" burglary - a burglary that takes place when the homeowners are present - or a "home invasion", which is a much more accurate term. Just over 10 per cent of US burglaries are "hot" burglaries, and in my part of the world it's statistically insignificant: there is virtually zero chance of a New Hampshire home being broken into while the family are present. But in England and Wales it's more than 50 per cent and climbing. Which is hardly surprising given the police's petty, well-publicised pursuit of those citizens who have the impertinence to resist criminals.

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q...IRY6GoKw&pli=1

Table 3-1 (note the years are in the 1990s, by all accounts the rate has increased since then.)

https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb...aspx?id=175945
"In 25 percent of burglaries, someone was at home and was aware of what was happening." This particular paper offers no figures for burglaries that occurred while owners were home and unaware (sleeping perhaps).

Oddly, the latest British Crime Surveys don't seem to break out the number of burglaries that occur in occupied dwellings.

British homeowners were once famously advised by a sitting Home Secretary to make a burglar a cup of tea rather than challenge him.

[retiredtinbender]

Originally Posted by Coaster

Oddly, the latest British Crime Surveys don't seem to break out the number of burglaries that occur in occupied dwellings.

British homeowners were once famously advised by a sitting Home Secretary to make a burglar a cup of tea rather than challenge him.

I remember hearing that when I was stationed there. Even the Queens bed chamber was broken into,while she was there I believe. She went out and got security to come in.

[retiredtinbender]

Thought I remembered it right: BBC ON THIS DAY | 9 | 1982: Queen fends off bedroom intruder

The Queen didn't carry but I bet security did.

[Zymer]

Originally Posted by michael_atw

There was no reason to note they are lower than actual. It's a given, since all across the board they can be considered lower than actual.

Actually, there is a reason- you might know this, and I might know this, but there is no reason to assume that *everyone else* knows it. I see no harm in noting that the figures could be inaccurate. I take umbrage at your accusation of me "hypothetically" "jacking up" the numbers, I did no such thing.

Egads, you seem to be spoiling for an argument no matter what it might be.

Originally Posted by michael_atw

Which means all numbers are relatively lower - which means relatively to each other, no change occurs if we assume all have the same asterisk of underreporting.

Actually, according to the folks at the BCS, the British authorities not only use different qualifications for reporting numbers of crimes than we do in the US, but they also have a tendency to 'fudge' the numbers of certain crimes more than others. So, we do *not* have an equivalence of under-reporting and the note was intended, in part, to create awareness that the Brit authorities are intentionally promulgating disinformation.

Originally Posted by michael_atw

I see you found no response for the stats I posted. That's fine, I will hope you've gathered information and altered your perceptions accordingly.

I haven't even looked, nor do I intend to. I've already spent far more time on this than I had planned. You wanted some sources (particularly for the number of burglaries occuring when the residents were at home), I provided some. I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue over their validity, if you want to dispute their figures, take it up with them.

(BTW, In Re: Tesco- 'Financial Services' includes Insurance Services, among other things they can be called an 'insurance company'. Why you chose to argue this point, other than to merely be argumentative, is beyond me.

Tesco PLC - About us - Our businesses

Look under 'Tesco Bank', note insurance products.)

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Zymer may not even have seen what you posted. He's often not able to check the forum for a few days. Once he was off for over 6 months, and your post was only yesterday.

Maybe he thinks I have absolutely nothing to do all day except sit at my PC salivating in anticipation of a response to a post on a message board?

[michael_atw]

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Zymer may not even have seen what you posted. He's often not able to check the forum for a few days. Once he was off for over 6 months, and your post was only yesterday.

He responded after that post. So yes, he saw it. He was skipping around my sources because they were adverse to his claims. If I didn't call him out, the point would not have been made (as he posted material counter to what I had said).

[michael_atw]

Originally Posted by Zymer

I haven't even looked, nor do I intend to. I've already spent far more time on this than I had planned. You wanted some sources (particularly for the number of burglaries occuring when the residents were at home), I provided some. I have neither the time nor the inclination to argue over their validity, if you want to dispute their figures, take it up with them.

Maybe he thinks I have absolutely nothing to do all day except sit at my PC salivating in anticipation of a response to a post on a message board?

Egads, you seem to be spoiling for an argument no matter what it might be.

Nope, merely making sure you looked at the source material which runs counter to some of your claims. Also, you're the one who brought faulty source information my way - if anyone was "spoiling" for an argument, it would be the engage-r (you). I was the respondent. You skipped over all my sources and responded to the small part about the under-reporting of crime. The reason you skipped them is because they don't validate your position. I called you out because you sidestepped my sources and the conversation, and now I see you are nonchalantly shrugging it off. You had all the time in the world before to do research...why not now? Is it harder to do when they are counter your position? I would suggest more objectivity to this matter.

I have no interest in taking it up with "them", since they did not interpret the figures on a citydata forum as a response to me. You can't respond to me in a discussion, then huff-and-puff when I respond back with valid source material. "Arguments" don't work like that.

Your figures were not correct, your assessment of the crime in Canada was not either. Your assessment is biased towards your position; and subsequently, having to see sources that counter you seems to irk you a bit. Sorry bud, but you can't win 'em all. I'm glad you responded to that part though instead of skipping around it.

Like I said before, both sides like to twist tall tales about gun control. Since I am not against guns but also not a gun owner, I would rather advocate an objective position. The objective position being a claim that burglars are targeting occupied households merely because of lax gun laws is quite a fallacy indeed.

[mensaguy]

Posted 5-23-12 7:46 PM

Originally Posted by Zymer

Of course under-reporting occurs, .....

Posted 5-24-12 1:39 PM

Originally Posted by michael_atw

..... I see you found no response for the stats I posted. .....

Posted 5-24-12 2:12 PM

Originally Posted by mensaguy

Zymer may not even have seen what you posted. .....

Posted 5-24-12 6:00 PM

Originally Posted by Zymer

..... Maybe he thinks I have absolutely nothing to do all day except sit at my PC salivating in anticipation of a response to a post on a message board?

Posted 5-25-12 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by michael_atw

He responded after that post. So yes, he saw it. He was skipping around my sources because they were adverse to his claims. .....

Actually, michael_atw, Zymer didn't make any posts at all anywhere on City-Data between the two bolded posts above. Anyone can go look up a member's posting history. Of course, you can say what you want, but City-Data rarely deletes anything and these threads show up in search results all the time, so the truth needs be included. Sorry, but you're wrong this time.