Crime Attitudes from a Filipina Perspective

[Reboot]

If the cops won't handle it then you have to. But since you won't, next time he comes up on the porch legitimately threatening violence, hand her a machete and let her go to town. If you want to avoid that, then just hang a sign that says "No Trespassing, Attack Filipina On Duty."

Or "My Filipina Can Reach The Fence in 2.8 Seconds...Can You?"

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Reboot

[Gratefuled]

4 hours ago, Mike J said:

Is the USA trying to cure the "symptoms" of crime while other countries are trying to cure the "cause" of crime?"  Food for thought. 

Maybe, just maybe, there are a lot more crimes committed in the states than in all the other countries you mention.

Hence, more criminals, hence, more in prison.

[Gerald Glatt]

It also cuts our unemployment rolls.  

4 minutes ago, Gratefuled said:

Maybe, just maybe, there are a lot more crimes committed in the states than in all the other countries you mention.

Hence, more criminals, hence, more in prison.

 

[AlwaysRt]

14 hours ago, davewe said:

We live in a "nice" neighborhood, but it's urban. It's one of the attractions; it's a pleasant, slightly upscale area that's close to downtown and all the action. So it's not unusual for homeless people to wander up our street.

The other day a young man, clearly stoned and/or psychotic, stopped in front of our house. He was yelling and screaming, flipping the bird, tore off his shirt, etc. He walked onto our porch and then back to the sidewalk a couple of times. My wife is watching him like a hawk. I'm watching too but I'm mostly amused. Finally he hits the For Sale sign in front of our house with his fist. He grabs the flyers in the box, crumples them up and throws them in the street. Apparently he doesn't want us to move! I call 911.

A few minutes later a policeman arrives. We watch (as do the rest of our neighbors) as the cop talks to the young man. I know the drill; the cop can and will do nothing. I talk to the officer who as expected explains that unless he sees the guy committing a real crime he can't arrest him. He asked him if he wanted to go to the hospital and the guy said no. That's all the cop can do. 

In the meantime our next-door neighbor arrives and she is hugging Janet and is crying. Janet is not crying; Janet is pissed. Why can't the police take him away or at least allow her to bolo the guy. The young man continues to wander aimlessly and the officer talks to him again. He eventually agrees to be taken to the hospital.

I explain the realities to my pissed off wife. The streets and sidewalks are public; you cannot keep people from using them just because they don't live there, even if they are stoned, drunk, crazy or all three.

I think of when and where I grew up. It was a suburban neighborhood. There were no drunks or crazies wandering that neighborhood. Vagrancy laws back in those days ensured that people who did not "belong" were kept out. Of course that often meant that anyone who wasn't the right color was also kept out.

Janet simply does not understand the insane nature of the United States. Our next door neighbor is a construction contractor and has a few pick up trucks. One or two are often parked in front of our house. Janet is incensed. I've talked to my neighbor, a nice guy, and he tries to keep them from my house, but after all, the streets are public and I don't own the spaces in front of our home. I suspect that my lovely wife thinks that the bolo to a couple tires might solve the problem.

I am not sure what my point is or if I have a point; it's just interesting to see the cultural difference. In the Philippines I suspect Janet would threaten the young man with a bolo (and she is very skilled) and he'd run off. She'd complain to the barangay captain about the neighbor's trucks or take the law into her own hands. Needless to say, Janet loves Duterte.

I understand her attitude. I pay plenty for my house, am annoyed by the homeless wandering through, and the inability or unwillingness of the police to lock them all up. But I also understand this is the price I pay for living in a nice place close to the action.

It did make me nostalgic for a time when the cops could act differently. I explained to Janet that the freedom we have in the US does not only impact home owners, but in my heart I wouldn't mind taking out the bolo myself.

 

OK, I am confused. Where are you? First I thought Phils, then US, then Phils again...

7 hours ago, robert k said:

Generally for it to be trespass in the US the property must be posted and you must ask them to leave and they fail to do so, then it is solidly trespass. Taking the flyers, although of small value and throwing them in the street? Petty theft/destruction of property/littering? Pick the one that fits your fancy. We are just talking about a ride to Detox and an evaluation, not a life sentence. The point of Detox is you aren't under arrest, more like temporary protective custody and they are released with no fine, no court appearance and consequently, little paperwork.

Coulda told the cop, 'I told him to get off my property, he came on my property all the way to my front porch threatening us (adding making terroristic threats and assault to the list of crimes), he then left our property, came back again and messed with the For Sale sign and removed then destroyed the flyers and threw them in the street'. Plenty of reasons to at least move the guy from the area.

3 hours ago, Reboot said:

If the cops won't handle it then you have to. But since you won't, next time he comes up on the porch legitimately threatening violence, hand her a machete and let her go to town. If you want to avoid that, then just hang a sign that says "No Trespassing, Attack Filipina On Duty."

Or "My Filipina Can Reach The Fence in 2.8 Seconds...Can You?"

 

No puppy, I can not run that fast. However, I can draw my Sig Sauer 9mm in 0.7 seconds, Can You?

 

 

[Mike J]

4 hours ago, Gerald Glatt said:

 

It also cuts our unemployment rolls.  

 

Unfortunately that is probably true.  Unfortunate because unemployment cost maybe $25K or so a year, but it cost about three times that to keep someone in prison.  There is a bright side though, for each additional three prisoners, they need to hire one additional prison staff.  Then when they get enough, they can build a new prison which provides a nice boost to the local economy.

[Mike J]

4 hours ago, Gratefuled said:

Maybe, just maybe, there are a lot more crimes committed in the states than in all the other countries you mention.

Hence, more criminals, hence, more in prison.

You could very well be on to something there.  That would be a hard one to pin down because most law enforcement agencies of any country always want to boast of a low crime rate.  If we assume that is true, we would again have to ask "Why such a high crime rate compared to the rest of the world?".  Or is it possible that in the USA the bar is set lower for someone to be sent to prison, or for a longer prison sentence?  Either or both would result in higher rate of incarceration.

[Gratefuled]

12 minutes ago, Mike J said:

Or is it possible that in the USA the bar is set lower for someone to be sent to prison, or for a longer prison sentence

I'm not sure how true it is but are is what I read once. 

Going from eastern states to the western states. Criminals are more likely to get longer prison terms in the east and more are executed. Whereas in California criminals get lighter prison sentences and fewer are executed. Texas for example, has a very high rate of executions. California being more liberal. 

[Mike J]

8 hours ago, robert k said:

More than 90 percent of foreign-born federal prison inmates are illegal ...

From the Washington Examiner.

I was able to find the same information.  What I was not able to determine from any of the articles I read was a breakdown for why the foreign-born illegal was in prison.  For sure we can assume those foreign born who are now USA citizens committed some kind of crime and got locked up.  But what about other 90%, was he/she in prison BECAUSE they were illegal, or was it because they had committed some crime IN ADDITION to being in the USA illegally.  I am not suggesting the illegals should not be locked up, but it appears the intent of the articles I read was to suggest that illegals posed a criminal danger to society.  One article in fact said that 87 of that 90 percent were due to be deported.  That would seem to suggest that most were locked up after being identified as being in the USA illegally.

Part of the problem is to how to get accurate unbiased data.  There is a popular saying that goes "Figures don't lie, buy liars always find a way to use figures."  In addition to bending facts, you now see "news" that is entirely made up, with absolutely no basis in fact.  It seems almost impossible these days to gets "honest unbiased journalism" out of the USA.

[robert k]

3 hours ago, Mike J said:

I was able to find the same information.  What I was not able to determine from any of the articles I read was a breakdown for why the foreign-born illegal was in prison.  For sure we can assume those foreign born who are now USA citizens committed some kind of crime and got locked up.  But what about other 90%, was he/she in prison BECAUSE they were illegal, or was it because they had committed some crime IN ADDITION to being in the USA illegally.  I am not suggesting the illegals should not be locked up, but it appears the intent of the articles I read was to suggest that illegals posed a criminal danger to society.  One article in fact said that 87 of that 90 percent were due to be deported.  That would seem to suggest that most were locked up after being identified as being in the USA illegally.

Part of the problem is to how to get accurate unbiased data.  There is a popular saying that goes "Figures don't lie, buy liars always find a way to use figures."  In addition to bending facts, you now see "news" that is entirely made up, with absolutely no basis in fact.  It seems almost impossible these days to gets "honest unbiased journalism" out of the USA.

If you are not a US citizen, committing a felony is grounds for deportation...after you have paid your debt to society. Misdemeanors, you probably spend enough time in holding waiting to be deported that they do not bother trying to impose a jail stay on top of that.

[Gratefuled]

3 hours ago, Mike J said:

I was able to find the same information.  What I was not able to determine from any of the articles I read was a breakdown for why the foreign-born illegal was in prison.  For sure we can assume those foreign born who are now USA citizens committed some kind of crime and got locked up.  But what about other 90%, was he/she in prison BECAUSE they were illegal, or was it because they had committed some crime IN ADDITION to being in the USA illegally.  I am not suggesting the illegals should not be locked up, but it appears the intent of the articles I read was to suggest that illegals posed a criminal danger to society.  One article in fact said that 87 of that 90 percent were due to be deported.  That would seem to suggest that most were locked up after being identified as being in the USA illegally.

Part of the problem is to how to get accurate unbiased data.  There is a popular saying that goes "Figures don't lie, buy liars always find a way to use figures."  In addition to bending facts, you now see "news" that is entirely made up, with absolutely no basis in fact.  It seems almost impossible these days to gets "honest unbiased journalism" out of the USA.

Prisoners in a federal prison are there because they have been convicted of a federal crime. Maybe the illegals were or are in  a federal prison waiting to be sent back to their country. If the illegal immigrant had committed a felony and convicted of it he would be sent to a state prison and then deported. Federal crimes are different than a felony committed within a sate. You can look up what is a federal crime and what is a state crime.