Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Rose Mary Woods-esque

I emailed Heather Reed and Captain Stubbings and asked K-State to resend the April 18-24 police log today. According to my inbox, I think they skipped right over those dates and published the April 25 log. The missing gap in police logs brings with it a gratuitous and unmerited conspiratorial reference to Rose Mary Woods and the Watergate era. Only those 45 and older have any shot of recalling the 18 1/2 minute gap. In the case of the April 18-24 police log gap, I'm sure it's just an honest omission. Speaking of the K-State police log, the latest version appears to be police log lite - partial sentence descriptions of various events.

This came from today's log:

OFFICERS AND EMS RESPONDED TO MEDICAL EMERGENCY AT THROCKMORTON HALL.
TRANSPORT BY EMS WAS REFUSED.

Here was the police log earlier this year, describing a medical emergency the campus police responded to:

WEST HALL
OFFICER AND EMS RESPONDED MEDICAL EMERGENCY AT WEST HALL ROOM (XXX-omitted here but room number is present in the published police log). REPORTING PERSON ADVISED FEMALE SUBJECT LOST CONSCIOUSNESS. VICTIM REGAINED CONSCIOUSNESS ON ARRIVAL. TRANSPORT BY EMS WAS REFUSED


Perhaps KSU police and Campus Security Officer Heather Reed are cutting back on details of incidents in the police log in regard for students right to privacy. If so, I can't fault them for that, but only wonder why it wasn't done sooner.



Rose Mary Woods demonstrating how she may have erased tape recordings
Rose Mary Woods demonstrating how she may have erased tape recordings



Letter to the editor: Against concealed carry

This letter to the editor in Virginia Tech Collegiate Times got quite a few responses, as you might expect. Here is the letter:


In light of the previous week being Firearms Awareness Week and reading the multiple articles about passing the concealed carry law, I felt compelled to write in and bring up some issues that most people seem to be overlooking.

The main argument I hear in favor of the concealed carry on campus is that if students were allowed to carry guns on campus, events like those on April 16, 2007 could be prevented or at least lessened if students had concealed weapons to protect themselves. Personally, I believe that is ridiculous, but even if this was the case, I don't think that is a strong enough argument to let people carry guns into classrooms. Campus shootings such as those on our campus and at Northern Illinois University earlier this year are not everyday occurrences; in fact they are extremely rare. What is actually an everyday occurrence is the death of approximately 80 Americans because of gun violence.

So, would the benefits of allowing students to carry weapons on campus outweigh the risks? No! What may decrease is the number of students killed in large shootings like the one that so greatly affected our campus last spring, but the reverse of this would be the number of single handgun homicides that would inevitably occur if people were able to carry a gun with them into everyday situations. I do not want some 21-year-old student sitting next to me in my math class carrying a gun.

To obtain a gun in Virginia, you must apply and go through a screening process and a background check, unless of course you decide to go to a private dealer at a gun show and simply hand over some money and buy whatever gun that suits your purpose. Some states require you to take a class before you can get a gun, but that's about as effective as putting a 15-year-old through driver's-ed and saying he or she is ready to drive a racecar. The point is that the average college student is not trained to know how and when to use a gun properly in self-defense.

If you let students carry a gun on campus where do you draw the line on when it is appropriately used? If you increase the number of guns on campus, you increase the number of opportunities to use these guns. That isn't a decision that I think should be left up to each individual and untrained student. And if you allow guns on campus, there isn't any way to prevent them from being used, there can only be punishment for using them incorrectly, which is too late to save a life. The answer to guns on campus is not more guns. The only way to prevent events like the one that occurred on our campus last year is to take the guns out of the equation, not adding more to the mix.

One final thought is that on average, if someone gets shot and killed in the United States, four out of five times it's by a handgun. Ban handguns, anybody? This is a huge issue and there are arguments I didn't address, not wanting to turn this letter into an essay, but in the end I think it is a safer and wiser decision to limit the presence of guns on campus and in general, rather than invite more in.

John Forys
senior, mathematics

---

Some of the responses;

Posted by: Terry at 2:20 am Really..."so not relevant". Who deals with determined mass shooters more than our military in Iraq or the Israelis? Granted, terrorists have different motivations and it occurs a lot more than on a US college campus. Sky marshalls are a concealed deterent (response) to those intent on harming unarmed citizens. Yet, I can't remember one saving an aircraft... Flag Abuse
Posted by: pro2a at 1:46 am yea, terry. because "you" don't think it'll have an effect on classroom shootings, we shouldn't allow it. get real, that is the worst argument i've ever heard. addressing mass shootings should be a combination of all of these approaches, and there is no possible way you could ever do enough prevention and awareness to eliminate all risk of attack. your response is just so not relevant. then once we step outside of classroom shootings, your reasoning goes right to the trash can, like the ones in this article. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Terry at 1:41 am I think SCCC is arguing for something that will have a negligible effect in deterring or countering gun violence on campus(es). Obviously awareness, prevention and preparation (including an armed response) are important in dealing with any crisis, shooting, terrorist act, etc. But the main efforts should be toward AWARENESS (of those who may be suicidal) and PREVENTION (thru treatment or sending the mentally ill student home). Even our military and the Israelis realized that intelligence and prevention are the key...especially with suicidal bombers or IEDs. Its probably not sky marshalls deterring potential hijackers. More likely they realize that passengers will beat them to death (with or without guns or bombs) because they are aware it can be a one way trip... Flag Abuse
Posted by: Brandon Wilson at 1:03 am this is the same old argument over and over again. what if... what if... the SCCC doesn't present what if's... we present proven facts. if you go back through old newspapers this is the same arguments each state went through before each passed their own Concealed carry laws. everyone knew that it would be absolute panic and shootouts everyday, but guess what? never happened. in fact almost every state that passed a concealed carry law, the crime rate went down, everywhere else without still on the rise. as for college students not experienced enough, i can tell you that most of us spend more time at the ranges improving our accuracy than most cops are required to do. the point is, think about the risks we take right now as we all walk on to campus defensless. we took the risks and look were it landed us, 32 dead. and we havent learned from that. yes the risks do outweigh the choice. that's why i have chosen to carry, because i have chosen not to risk my life anymore. we tried it with the gun-free zone, obviously that worked out real well. now its time to try a proven method of crime control. NO LONGER DO I FEAR FOR MY LIFE, BUT NOW I MAKE THE CRIMINAL FEAR FOR HIS LIFE! Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Apr 28 “So, would the benefits of allowing students to carry weapons on campus outweigh the risks? No! What may decrease is the number of students killed in large shootings like the one that so greatly affected our campus last spring, but the reverse of this would be the number of single handgun homicides that would inevitably occur if people were able to carry a gun with them into everyday situations.” The benefits have without exception outweighed any small risk. Just look at the majority of states that now allow concealed carry. We just don’t see these hypothetical shootouts that the anti concealed carry people predict. Instead we see a reduction in crime. This “inevitable” increase in “the number of single handgun homicides” just doesn’t happen. In fact, at the 11 colleges that currently allow concealed carry by licensed student, there has not been a single gun accident or shootout. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Mike at Apr 28 "Campus shootings such as those on our campus and at Northern Illinois University earlier this year are not everyday occurrences; in fact they are extremely rare." No, but assaults, murders, robbery, and raps ARE everyday occurrences. Guns prevent these crimes somewhere between 800,000 and 2,500,000 times a year, according to around 14 different studies done on the subject. While the chances of another mass shooting is rare, the chances of these other crimes that don’t make headlines is likely at some point in your life. Flag Abuse
Posted by: Alyson Boyce at Apr 28 Ban handguns? Take a look at Washington D.C. where handguns ARE banned....that's a pretty peaceful place, right? Looks like it's working for them.... Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken Stanton at Apr 28 Use your voice on the topic, take the survey & quiz: https://survey.vt.edu/survey/entry.jsp?id=1208998040655 Flag Abuse
Posted by: Ken Stanton at Apr 28 "bring up some issues … seem to be overlooking." And then you go and spout the same old rhetoric, John. First, SCCC takes a firm stance AGAINST any kind of speculation of heroism last April, and always have. The argument is that no one HAD THE CHOICE, so we will never know. "everyday occurrence is the death of approximately 80 Americans because of gun violence." The existence of gun violence only supports SCCC's cause - as we've seen, only equal power can stop a gun. "I do not want some 21-year-old student sitting next to me in my math class carrying a gun." How do you know they aren't now? What about when you're at the movies? There is a good chance there are a few people sitting next to you who are carrying. "unless ... a private dealer at a gun show..." Oh the ol' "gun-show loophole" - unrelated and it doesn't exist... next. "the average college student is not trained to know how and when to use a gun properly in self-defense." Way to sell out your fellow students as irresponsible and incapable of life&death decision-making. "the line on when it is appropriately used?" Maybe the law? It isn't different on campus! "take the guns out of the equation" Yes, that 'no-guns' policy on campus sure makes criminals tremble. "Ban handguns, anybody?" Same old conclusion. You presented nothing new, we address these points every day. Bring in some new arguments next time. Flag Abuse
Posted by: at Apr 28 Dan, I would rather hear statements supporting CCW than all of the unfounded reasons for not having guns on campus. "What if they get drunk and start shooting..." yeah, you hear about this stuff all the time off campus right? Do you realize how many people in Blacksburg own guns and carry concealed weapons already? Flag Abuse
Posted by: Dan at Apr 28 I hope your ready for the large slew of, "Get over your silly fear", "Guns save lives", "Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have them", "Guns don't kill people do", and my personal favorite, "Why not ban cars too then they kill people!" This is a good letter but I promise you'll get all said statements above and maybe more.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Daily Nebraskan: Lincoln's Hate Crimes Increasing

From The Daily Nebraskan:

A Lincoln man recently came home to his apartment only to be greeted by the message, "FAG i DIE!" scratched into the finish of his front door. This was not the first incident the man had experienced since coming out of the closet - someone scratched a swastika into the paint of his car and he found feces outside his door.

These crimes, motivated by anti-homosexual bias, are classified as hate crimes by the Lincoln Police Department.

In 2006, the FBI received reports of 7,722 instances of bias-motivated crime from participating agencies around the nation. St. Louis reported eight, Denver had 11, Atlanta had seven and Chicago reported 33.

The Lincoln Police Department reported 36 hate crimes.

In 2007, that number jumped to 59.

According to the Lincoln Police Department policy, if both the victim of a crime and the original investigating officer feel the motivating factors behind a crime involved a negative bias, the incident is reported as a hate crime.

The difference in numbers of hate crimes in cities with larger, more diverse populations than Lincoln could be a result of less-stringent criteria required to classify a crime as bias-motivated. It could also be a result of a willingness on the part of the Lincoln Police Department to acknowledge hate still exists in the city.

"The (phenomenon) behind the large amount of reported hate crimes is solely because of the reporting practices (of the police department)," said Chief Tom Casady of the Lincoln Police Department. "We do good job of recording crimes as hate crimes compared to most other cities because we're not imposing an overly strict standard of evidence."

A problem with classifying hate crimes is there is no universal definition, said Hugh Whitt, a professor of sociology at UNL who studies religious hate crimes.

"Sometimes, you have to delve into the motivation of (the) people involved," he said, and that can be "real sticky."

For example, if a man wanted to rob a liquor store and selects a target at random, that is a crime. If the man decides to rob a store because the proprietor is black, that is a hate crime, Whitt explained.

Reporting hate as a category of crime is often voluntary and discretionary - some places don't even acknowledge that crimes motivated by hate are different than any other crime.

And, he said, without a doubt, hate crimes are under-reported.

"The key difference in Lincoln is we really want officers to use their common sense. If they have an inkling or thoughts about the motivating factor, they use their best judgment and report it," Casady said. "Poor reporting artificially depresses statistics."

The ease of classification increases the amount of crimes reported as hate crimes. This helps the police track trends based on type of bias and type of crime.

Acknowledging that hate crimes do happen in Lincoln pulls away the veil of denial about racism and hatred, he said.

"The advantage of this kind of reporting is we get a more accurate picture of hatred. To believe (eight) hate crimes happened in St. Louis flies in the face of common sense," Casady said. "How do you raise public awareness about the issue if (people) believe hate crimes don't occur here?"

Casady said the most serious hate crime Lincoln has experienced was the kidnapping and murder of Harold Grover, a gay man, in 1993. Grover was killed by two men from Kansas who traveled to the city with the intention of finding a homosexual and killing him.

The least serious, and one of the most common, is hate language, said either during fights or in graffiti.

"The worst words in the English language are hate speech. The dirtiest words are hate words," Casady said.

The words can be anti-homosexual language on a bathroom wall, spoken over the telephone as a threat, thrown about during a violent fight or spray-painted onto the sides of a vehicle. The police department has seen all of these happen within the last 18 months.

The victims and perpetrators are usually young people, Casady said.

"Young people who are racist are socially aware and know to keep their bigotry under wraps and not use the N-word but express the same attitudes towards gays and Asian-Americans," he said.

One incident in Lincoln in March involved middle-school age children in which the kids called a classmate gay, beat him with bamboo and assaulted him.

To cut down on the intolerance that leads to these kinds of incidents, Casady recommends action.

"Stand up against hate speech - refuse to listen to it, take away its audience or go somewhere else entirely," he said. "Any hate crime is one too many. I'm worried about the denial I see. People who just don't know or believe it doesn't happen don't call it out and run the risk of being complicit."

Daily Texan:Fraternity leaders face hazing charges

SAE in hot water. From The Daily Texan :

The Travis County Attorney's Office charged four members of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon Texas Rho Chapter on Friday for allegedly hazing pledges with cattle prods, beating them with bamboo sticks and forcing them to binge drink.

Officials indicted former chapter President Chase Bolding, economics senior and former pledge trainer Austin Sherrill and former pledge trainer Will Evans with both hazing, a Class B misdemeanor, and furnishing alcohol to a minor, a Class A misdemeanor. Attorneys also charged former Vice President Jimmy Berry with failure to report hazing, a Class B misdemeanor. Class B misdemeanors are punishable by up to six months in jail and a maximum $2,000 fine. Class A misdemeanors are punishable by up to one year in jail and a maximum $4,000 fine.

All of the charges relate to incidences that occurred during the fall 2006 semester. Lawyers for the charged members could not be reached by press time.

Travis County Attorney David Escamilla said this was the first time a hazing-related investigation had led to additional charges. Escamilla said the Nov. 17, 2006 death of engineering freshman and pledge Tyler Cross sparked the 14-month investigation. The correlation between the hazing investigation and Cross' death is under the jurisdiction of the Travis County District Attorney's office, but representatives from the office did not confirm any relationship by press time.

"The message we're trying to send is really to focus on the leadership," Escamilla said. "If they aren't going to control the hazing, then I don't know who will."

After the Ohio State University football game on Sept. 9, 2006, Bolding, Sherrill and Evans called a meeting at a pledge's room in the University Towers private dormitory, according to the probable cause affidavit. At the meeting, Bolding forced a pledge to take the "bows and toes position" in which he had to raise himself on his elbows and toes while lying on a table. After the pledge got into position, Bolding flipped the table over onto the pledge. Later in the meeting, Evans threw darts at a pledge's hand after telling the pledge to put his hand against a dart board. Several darts struck the pledge. Sherrill also picked up a hot clothes iron and burned the faces of two pledges in the room. The two were instructed to not attend classes until the minor burns healed, the affidavit said.

On Nov. 10, 2006, the fraternity hosted a "cactus run," where pledges were required to gather large amounts of cactus with their bare hands for an upcoming party, the affidavit said. At the event, Evans required three pledges to eat Crisco and two others to eat cat food. Evans also shocked several pledges with a cattle prod and forced one to sit on a cactus, according to the affidavit.

Four days later, during "Jungle Week," - a week dedicated to building structures for the fraternity's biggest party of the year - members required pledges to participate in a pool-building competition, dividing them into two teams, the affidavit continued. The pledges ran across the house's yard carrying heavy rocks, while active members struck them with bamboo sticks. Members forced the losing team to pile into the back of a Penske truck, where Sherrill gave a speech and shocked the pledges with a cattle prod, the affidavit said.

Two days after that, on Nov. 16, 2006, the chapter hosted a ceremony called "Senior Boo" where nine active members chose one pledge each to attend, the affidavit said. That night, the pledges got into the back of the Penske truck parked outside of the fraternity house. The members instructed the pledges to remove their shirts and blindfold themselves, and at least one other member was hog-tied. Sherrill drove the truck to the location of "Senior Boo," while members in the back used cattle prods on the pledges. When they arrived at the ceremony, the members gave the pledges three half-gallon bottles of tequila, whiskey and Rumplemintz to drink, the affidavit said.

Sherrill encouraged the underage pledges to "consume excessive amounts of liquor," the affidavit said. Sherrill and Bolding also "traded swats" from a piece of bamboo with the pledges. During the ceremony, Bolding singled out one pledge, forced him to get into the "bows and toes" position and kicked him in the stomach. On the ride back, Bolding and Sherrill provided the pledges with a keg of beer, the affidavit said.

Juan Gonzalez, vice president for student affairs, said the University is taking a proactive effort to prevent hazing and providing alcohol to minors. On April 7, representatives from SAE and UT signed a mutual agreement restricting the fraternity from such activities. Gonzalez said SAE is the only Greek organization to sign the agreement.

"What was made public today was very disturbing," Gonzalez said. "Individual students, and also organizations, need to recognize that there are consequences. At the end of the day, we're talking about illegal activities."

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Guns bans can't stop wackos bent on murder

That's the incongruous sounding headline of this piece in the KC Star by Thomas McClanahan. If gun bans can't stop wackos, can concealed carry? He explains:


The panel that oversees Kansas state universities has decreed that campuses under its control shall be weapons-free. I wonder: Will students, faculty and staff feel safer?

The recent move by the state Board of Regents came a year after the Virginia Tech massacre — a mass public shooting that left 32 dead in a place that was already weapons-free, in theory. Like so many of these incidents, Virginia Tech showed why gun bans in places as open as campuses are toothless as safety measures.

The thought of students or faculty walking around campus with weapons is not an attractive one, I’ll acknowledge. In some visceral sense, it feels wrong at first blush, and it’s a sad comment on the state of our society that officials must grapple with the risk of some psychotic releasing pent-up anger in a hail of gunfire.

Yet it is delusional to pretend that gun-free zones on paper can create gun-free zones in reality, unless you’re talking about closed environments such as government buildings or airport concourses.

Personally I’d feel safer on a campus where I knew some of the students or the staff — those who complied with the licensing requirements of concealed carry laws, if applicable — were likely to be armed. Not all campuses are gun-free zones: Colorado State University, as well as all of Utah’s universities, allow concealed-carry in compliance with state laws.

The Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, the scene of another shooting spree last year, was also a posted gun-free zone. Five people were killed, but the death toll would have been higher but for an off-duty police officer who, ignoring the mall rules, retained his weapon. After hearing shots, he fired back at the shooter until police arrived.

That was only one of several incidents in recent years in which armed citizens acted to prevent or curtail shooting sprees.

The nonsensical nature of the campus gun-free zone has not been lost on a growing number of students. After the Virginia Tech shooting, a group called Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was formed at Facebook.com, the social networking site.

These students sought the right to defend themselves, and last year they organized quiet protests on several campuses across the nation. Last week, they conducted another round of protests, in which students wear empty gun holsters on campus.

This kind of spontaneous response is surprising to some who follow the issue.

“Gun-rights activism typically originates among rural people who are hunters and the like,” said David Kopel of the Golden, Colo.-based Independence Institute. “To have young adults leading on this is something new.”

What the Kansas Regents did earlier this month was endorse a broad policy requiring weapons-free campuses and criminal background checks for newly hired staff. Officials said a consultant would be engaged to figure out how to implement the policies.

According to The Star’s account of the meeting, much of the discussion dealt with where to post signs prohibiting concealed weapons.

I asked Regents’ spokesman Kip Peterson how putting up signs would stop a wacko bent on mass murder. Peterson said he couldn’t comment until the specific policies and regulations were put into effect.

I wish them luck, but this exercise looks like another replay of the familiar fantasy underlying gun control: the assumption that gun bans alone can curtail violent crime.

In 2003, a study by the Fraser Institute of Canada concluded that restrictive gun laws in England, Wales and Canada were an expensive failure. A news release announcing the findings stated: “Disarming the public has not reduced criminal violence in any country examined in this study.”

About the same time, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control reviewed 51 studies, including some partly funded by the CDC, and found “insufficient evidence” that gun laws helped prevent violent crime.

The chairwoman of the Kansas Regents, Christine Downey-Schmidt, says ensuring safety is a critical board responsibility, and “continued diligence” is a vital priority.

Well, sure. But at some point, you’d think the Regents would explain how a policy that makes people defenseless can improve their safety.

Living dangerously - Off Campus Housing

From the Phoenix Tribune online a story that illustrates off campus housing is no respite from crime.

Instead, like many college students nationwide who choose to live away from school, they became victims of crime.
According to public records, four out of the 10 Tempe apartment complexes where police are called the most cater to ASU students, and one of them - where the most horrific crimes have occurred - is actually recommended by the university.
"I don't feel as safe as I think I should," said 20-year-old Riana Wernick, an ASU junior living at Gateway on Apache. "There's way too many people with way too much access."
Wernick thought she'd be safe when she moved to the upscale off-campus apartment complex at 2323 E. Apache Blvd.
The pricey modern units were gated and filled with other students just like her. But when Wernick walked outside one day and found her car had been stolen, she realized she was wrong.
Wernick soon discovered many of her friends had also experienced crimes at the complex. Their belongings were stolen. They witnessed fights. Their property was damaged.
Police were called an average of 502 times per year from 2005 to 2007 at Gateway on Apache, formerly called University Housing of Tempe.
The average number of calls for service at the complex was .52 per resident in 2007, compared with the citywide average of .06 per resident for the same year.
In another complex, Gateway at Tempe, where one sexual assault and one rape were reported in February, police responded an average of 379 times per year over the past three years, records show.
These apartments, along with Scottsdale Gateway apartments, are all owned by the same company and ASU refers them all to young adults attending ASUlooking for off-campus housing.
While students say they are surprised by the amount of crime occurring in their complexes, police say the trend is common. And while ASU has created a special program for off-campus students, it recommends apartments to students without first determining if they are safe.
"Anytime you put students into a complex, we're going to be out there a lot," said Tempe police crime prevention Sgt. Ken Harmon. "I think they bring with them this on-campus, dorm mentality, 'I live with ASU students,' and 'I trust ASU students.' It couldn't be further from the truth."
He added, "They're not in a dorm and not all these people are ASU students."
The Associated Press reported a 2005 study by U.S. departments of education and justice shows crime rates for students living on campus were at least 50 percent lower than those living away from their campus, in the case of violent crimes. However, on-campus students were more likely to have belongings stolen.
Harmon said that students are both the criminals and the victims in their communities. He said the socially oriented focus of student apartment complexes creates conflict with more studious neighbors and that the trusting nature of the students leaves them vulnerable to criminals looking for easy victims.
In fact, Harmon said that most of the city's victims of sexual assaults and attempted sexual assaults this year involved the rapist climbing in through an unlocked window or door, and citywide, 44 percent of burglaries also show no signs of forced entries.
"I can't think of any young woman who deserved any of this, but if their door had been locked, (the criminals) would've moved on to the next one," Harmon said of the recent attacks.
Management at Gateway's complexes refused to take any questions from the Tribune as to what they are doing to keep their young-adult residents safe. However, the company issued a statement through public relations specialist Julie Ratcliff, of kREED + COMPANY.
"Our residents' safety is a top priority," the statement said. "We have many preventative measures in place at our community."
The statement listed some of these as crime-free multi-housing, tracking police calls for service at the complex, surveillance cameras in common areas, a gate and security. The complex also holds at least one safety meeting per semester.
Still, some residents living at the communities said they just don't feel safe.
"This is my second year living here, and I really don't feel safe at all," said ASU junior Danie Lack, who lives at Tempe Gateway.
ASU freshman Emily Green, 19, a Gateway on Apache resident, said crime in her complex has been such a nuisance that she has asked to break her lease after about nine months.
"There's a ton of fights around here. We randomly hear gunshots and my friend was taking care of his dog and his apartment got broken into," Green said. "You know parties, random people come in and they put him to gunpoint."
Green said she told management at her complex she fears for her safety and would like to work out a fair agreement, but "they said no."
ASU Associate Vice President of University Student Initiatives Michael Coakley said nearly 75 percent of students at the university live off-campus or commute from their parents' homes. Because of this, ASU began a new program, the Off-Campus and Commuter Student Services program, "to engage" students living off-campus.
However, while it does refer students to off-campus housing, the program does not hold the apartment complexes to any standards or ensure they are safe places to live. Also, the program doesn't track exactly how many students are involved in it, so its impact can't be measured.
"We know how many hits the Web site gets and how many people come to the programs," Coakley said, "but we don't know how many are duplicates."
Coakley said ASU tries to protect its off-campus students by partnering with police to hold crime-prevention events, but that the new program is more to provide a connection for students living away from ASU.
The program also has students act as liaisons between the complexes and the university.
While many of the complexes police visit most often cater largely to ASU students, some of the communities with the most calls have residents of many age groups.
Sierra Vista Apartments II, 615 S. Hardy Drive, and Coronado Apartments, 1865 E. Broadway Road, had the highest calls for service last year.
One apartment complex, Mill Pointe Apartments, formerly called the Villages on Mill, 4120 S. Mill Ave., had more than 800 calls for service in 2005 and 2006, then dropped down to 249.
Police said Mill Pointe Apartments is a great example of how fixing up the appearance of a property can also have a positive impact on crime.
"I was just commenting to one of my guys the other day that this place has done the transformation," Harmon said of Mill Pointe.
"They've taken a lot of steps of who goes in and who goes out and making that environment a lot safer," he said.
Police said the idea behind this concept is called the "Broken Windows Theory." Written by James Q. Wilson in 1982, it argues that properly maintaining a community by painting over graffiti, fixing broken windows and addressing other eyesores can lower crime.
"A rundown place invites crime," Harmon said.
Michael Levine, who wrote the book "Broken Windows, Broken Business," said adequate lighting and good property maintenance put criminals on the defensive, which is just where they should be.
"You've got to light the windows up," Levine said. "You've got to show criminals psychologically that the bad guys are not in charge."
One apartment, the Tanglewood Apartments, failed to stop criminals from operating on the property, prompting Tempe police to move forward with the rare but powerful criminal abatement process.
During criminal abatement, police can obtain a temporary restraining order mandating the property owners to take certain steps or be charged with a class 5 felony. The program essentially forces businesses to comply with crime prevention efforts.
A police notice released to the Tribune in a public records request showed the Tanglewood Apartments failed to address repeated drug sales and trafficking of stolen property on its premises between April 2006 and September 2007.
The complex was the only one that police have begun criminally abating in the past two years. And after the proceedings began, calls for service decreased by 73 percent, said Tempe police spokeswoman Sgt. Cindy Davies.
"That's a pretty effective tool," Harmon said.
However, he added, "A lot of times management doesn't know how to turn it around."

It could be worse

From South Africa comes this report. No reference to concealed carry - just carry. From the story:

Students say they are thinking of bringing firearms to campus for protection after a female student was robbed at gunpoint at the University of Cape Town.All SA campuses are supposed to be gun-free zones.Last weekend's attack on UCT's middle campus, in which a 20-year-old student was robbed of her handbag, laptop and car keys, has sparked outrage over the lack of security. And although security has been beefed-up since the robbery, security guards remain unarmed.Lesley Connolly, of Claremont, was walking to her car from the Kramer Law Building when two men grabbed her handbag, laptop and car keys.Police said the men jumped into a blue Mazda 323 and sped off.
The dazed student ran to tell Campus Protection Services guards, and when one drove in pursuit, a robber fired at him.A week earlier, second-year engineering student Michael Woodward, 22, was mugged at gunpoint as he walked home from UCT to his flat in Highstead Road, around the corner from Rondebosch police station. He said he was walking down Woodbine Road, about 200m from a campus security point, and was on a crutch, having broken his ankle."This well-dressed guy came up and asked where middle campus was. I gestured toward it, but as I did so he kind of changed character and lunged towards me. I got a fright and struck him with my crutch."Then I saw he had a gun and I stopped. He asked for my wallet and cellphone, which I handed over."A couple of hour later Woodward's girlfriend received an SMS from his phone, purporting to be from Woodward himself, asking her for his PIN number which he'd "forgotten".Now some students say they are considering bringing firearms on campus for protection.Lewis Martin, a psychology student from the US studying at UCT, said crime was rampant in Cape Town and was now moving on to campus.He had no choice but to consider buying a firearm to protect himself and his friends."Having a gun-free policy is good, but it could also be very dangerous if criminals come on to campus with guns. "At some universities in the US and even at certain schools students are often armed to protect themselves."It was "scary" to think that not even the security guards were armed.Another student, Carl Viljoen, said if the security guards or a student had had a firearm at the time of the robbery, the criminals might not have got away. "Sometimes having a firearm can save someone's life. I'm strongly considering getting one."Gabi Kulis, a psychology major at UCT, said although there were cameras and security guards, she still felt "very unsafe" on campus.She now avoided walking to her car alone.But UCT management says the campus will remain a gun-free zone. Spokeswoman Gerda Kruger said the attacks were "most regrettable and disturbing". Just days after the attack on Connolly, UCT science and education professor Kevin Rochford was shot dead in front of his home less than 2km from campus in Little Mowbray.Kruger said UCT shared the fear and frustration of students and staff about crime. But she said there was far less crime at UCT than in the surrounding areas or any other campus in the country."This does not make us complacent; we are constantly reviewing the situation and are improving our approach to preventing crime constantly. The safety and security of our staff and students will continue to enjoy the highest priority on the executive agenda of the institution," she said.Following the robbery at UCT other Cape Town campuses have also stepped up security. University of the Western Cape spokesman Luthando Tyhalibongo said crime was "a very real factor" on campus. But UWC saw itself as a part of its immediate community and society.Violent crimes which have brought campus security under the spotlight include:
In January 2005, UCT mathematics Professor Brian Hahn was bludgeoned with an umbrella on campus and kicked in the face. He died eight days later.
In October 2005, UCT engineering professor Hugh Douglas was robbed at gunpoint in his office on the campus.
In July 2006, UCT chemistry professor Mino Caira was left with serious head injuries by an attacker in his office

Bare holsters and the right to bear arms

From the CU Campus Press on April 24:


This week, empty holsters will be accompanying the wardrobe of many CU students.

The bearing of these empty holsters is part of a week-long protest hosted by Students for Concealed Carry on Campus. The protestors are calling for students who have a Colorado Concealed Handgun Permit to be allowed to carry concealed weapons on campus.

"We're asking for the regents to change policy and allow those who are licensed to carry a concealed weapon around the state also be allowed to carry one on campus," Jim Manley, a third-year law student and campus leader for SCCC, said.

Manley said this week is the second "Empty Holster" protest SCCC has held. The first protest, which happened last November, had about a dozen CU students bearing the empty holster. This year, Manley said around 50 students are carrying an empty holster.

Some students say the fact that they are unable to carry a concealed weapon on campus is frightening.

"It's a basic right to self defense," David Knutzen, a fifth-year senior computer science major, said. "Currently, I only rely on the very fact that may or may not get shot."

Knutzen, who is licensed to carry a concealed weapon, said gun permits are not handed out to just anyone. He said the process in which to get licensed is intense and requires about 5 or 6 weeks to complete everything needed. For his own permit, Knutzen said he had to have firearms training, submit to an extensive FBI background check and submit fingerprints on top of a $250 registration fee.

"The state also ensures that people don't have arrests for drug or alcohol abuse, domestic violence or any other sort of violent act," Knutzen said. "So, basically, not just anyone can be licensed."

Manley, Knutzen and other members from SCCC gathered outside the UMC Tuesday asking students to sign a petition that asked for the regents to allow licensed students to carry a concealed weapon on campus

Not every student is a fan of the idea of having weapons on campus. Adjacent to SCCC's protest, students not affiliated with any particular group were protesting against allowing concealed weapons.

"We don't want people to put their minds on violence by carrying or seeing weapons on campus," Rebecca West, a sophomore psychology major who organized the counter-protest, said.

The opposing students held a petition against concealed carry and hosted a "die-in" in which several students "played dead" in front of SCCC members. Students said by allowing guns on campus, the school would be promoting violence.

"Concealed carry is a step backwards," Daniel Daenen, a freshman film studies major said. "It's not working toward the end goal, which is to end violence."

Yet, Manley said statistics showed that concealed carry has lowered rates in crime. He said concealed carry is a deterrent, whereas prohibiting students from having a gun is not effective against violence.

"Gun-free zones are proven not to work," Manley said. "Both Virginia Tech and North Illinois University were gun-free and look what happened."

Currently, 11 colleges across the U.S. allow for concealed carry on their campuses including Colorado State University.

"The opposition basically doesn't believe victims should defend themselves," Manley said.

West, who wore a shirt listing all the names of students who were killed in a school shooting during the past decade, said even if concealed carry were allowed, it would not have stopped a shooting.

"I don't feel that if those victims were allowed to carry weapons, they would have been any safer," West said.

Despite the stigma held about guns, members of the SCCC said they believe that concealed carry would not promote violence but instead ensure self defense.

"I want to be able to defend myself if I need to," Knutzen said. "I hope to God that I'll never have to, but if I need to, at least I'll have that as an option."

Contact Campus \Press Staff Writer Sara Fossum at Sara.fossum@colorado.edu.

TK: Reaction posed on the story as of April 27:

From Jon:

Jon

posted 4/25/08 @ 3:15 PM MST

"We don't want people to put their minds on violence by carrying or seeing weapons on campus,"

"It's not working toward the end goal, which is to end violence."

It's actually kind of sad how naive some people are. First off, concealed weapons carry means that no one should be seeing the weapons. Second, I know that it's very nice and happy to think about a world without violence, but that will probably never be a reality. At least, not anytime soon. That being the case, it's important for otherwise peace loving people to be able to protect themselves, others, and that peace. If those with concealed weapons permits are allowed to bring their guns to school, then that brings with it the responsibility that those people had to have in order to obtain those permits. If there's a ban, then just think about how easy it would be for someone with harmful intent to bring a gun to school anyway. In that situation who do you want on your side, a responsible gun owner or someone as toothly unarmed as you?


Laura

posted 4/26/08 @ 3:58 PM MST

I suppose the college students that would like to receive permission to carry weapons on college property are not the same ones that like to show off. They are not the same students that like to binge drink. Different than the students that are just finding their way through love and relationships. Not the same young adults that on occasion act like juveniles that might be capable of "accidentally" firing a gun off, running away, and acting like it was not them. And, of course, not any of the highly intelligent students that the teacher "just doesn't like". I am 34 years old, I have been a full time college student for the past 4 years obtaining an associates and bachelors. I work full time with 2 kids, one o fwhich is in highschool. I AM A FIREARMS INSTRUCTOR that actually signs off on students receiving safety course for the right to carry. Guns do not belong in the schools or colleges. The likelihood that an act of violence will occur in the college that could have been prevented by a person carrying a gun AND that that person wanted to be involved and acted on the situation is very very unlikely. Based on common sense.




Saturday, April 26, 2008

More on concealed carry

Community discusses benefits of concealed carry was the headline from this April 25 story from the Collegian. From the story:

With the shootings at Virginia Tech and NIU, the topic of carrying concealed weapons on campus has been a hot one for students. In response to these events, K-State's Kansas Federation of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus conducted a forum Thursday night to discuss the benefits of carrying firearms on campus.

"People have the right to defend themselves," said Concealed Carry Instructor, Patricia Stoneking. "To post any place as a gun-free zone is to basically pose them as a target."

Stoneking, also a board member for the Kansas State Rifle Association, was one of the four panelists who gave their opinions for concealed carry on campus in front of students, faculty and community members.

Forum participants discussed the issue of school shootings and the amount of concern people might have with carrying weapons on campus.

"People kill people - guns don't kill people," Stoneking said. "There are other things that can be used to kill people - not just guns."

Students for Concealed Carry on Campus was started in March and its main goal is to promote carrying concealed weapons on campus.

"If someone wants to kill people, they can," said Virginia Webb, junior in public relations. "The government can't protect us, and we should be able to protect ourselves."

Webb said she heard about the event through her friends in College of Republicans who are involved in SCCC. Webb said she thought the forum was slightly one-sided because the group was unable to find people to speak about the negative aspects of concealed carry. Though there was a lack of debate, Webb said the event was still beneficial because it raised awareness of the need to have concealed carry on campus.

"I think that anyone who wants a gun can get one legally or illegally, so the people who get them legally are not the ones killing people," she explained.

SCCC president Ryan Willcott said there probably wouldn't have been tragedies at Virginia Tech and NIU had the universities allowed firearms.

"In both of these situations, the shooters came in with plenty of ammo because they knew that no one would be able to defend themselves," Willcott, freshman in business administration, said.

He also said the only reason people carry guns on campus is for self-defense purposes. He related carrying a gun to wearing a seat belt in that people wear seat belts in case of an emergency - he said it's the same with handguns. Willcott said students shouldn't worry about their peers having handguns on campus because they are already surrounded by Manhattan residents who carry concealed weapons every day.

"Just because they know it's now legal on campus, they think they will be freaked out," he said. "They just have to take it in strides and know that they're doing it all over in Manhattan and they just don't know it because it is a concealed handgun."


TK: Let's not forget that not all campus security officers have guns, so perhaps we should first at least make sure campus personnel are equipped to handle an active shooter before we account for concealed carry for students and faculty. Here is another story on concealed carry from the MU Maneater. Here is a link to an April 18 story on the topic:

Campus police -- not students -- should carry guns.That's one of the recommendations coming from campus law enforcement administrators from across the country meeting at Princeton University Friday.The International Association of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators said most colleges and universities already have police with guns. But some -- including Princeton -- don't.
Participants also said schools should determine whether people on campus are a risk to others

Friday, April 25, 2008

In praise of the campus police log

That's the message of this blog post from GWblogspot. Sentiments I share - sort of - for the KSU police log. From GW blogspot:

We here at GW blogspot endeavor to keep the mainstream campus press (i.e. The Hatchet) in check, but we also give credit where credit is due.

I want to take a moment to say how much I love your crime log. Its awesome.... the first thing (sometimes the only thing) I read each week.

Its actually trashy gossip in a sense, but if there anything we've learned from the media at large lately, its that trash sells (and I for one am buying). While going through it weekly I do my best to put names, places and rumors together in hopes of figuring out if I know the guys who were throwing water balloons out their dorm window, the UPD officers that worked the Tonic champaign caper, or what couple was charged with lewd acts in a car on campus...

But its always such a bummer to get to the last line and read "The subjects were not affiliated with the University" (as was the case with the backseat romantics).

Kudos Amy D'Onofrio. Thanks for keeping us all informed about the often comedic actions of UPD, homeless folks, those pesky "unaffiliated" individuals and of course my friends and neighbors. Can you add a few more details in the future? Perhaps some pictures? Names? just kidding about the last one... well, kinda...

Suggestion: do an end of year 'best of the crime log' article. If you don't I just may.

DISCLAIMER: I realize the crime log also serves as an important public service and also don't mean to diminish any of the serious incidents that are reported.



TK: My take, as an alum, is that the KSU police log is underappreciated and under reported by the Collegian, K-State's student paper. As far as I can tell, the Collegian pays virtually no heed to the campus police log and does not link to an electronic version of the campus police log, though it does publish the police blotter for Riley County. In fact, the KSU listserve shows only 120-something subscribers to the KSU police log in total. The fact that interested parties must subscribe to the police log (no easy task in itself) in the first place is bothersome. K-State needs to publish its police log online make the daily document - startlingly full of details at times - more widely available to all.


Thursday, April 24, 2008

Bumbots

From LSU, comes this suggestion of a way to fight crime:

Campus Crime Briefs would be a lot less exciting each week if the University would just bite the bullet and invest in a team of vigilante robots that fight crime.I know what you're thinking, and I agree. The University should make me a highly-paid consultant. Every University administrator knows my ideas are golden tickets straight to flagship university status.Usually, when my words can clearly change lives and re-define the way we think about higher education, they have all the effect of pearls before swine. This time is going to be different because vigilante robots already exist and are already fighting crime in America.These robots can actually make the University safer - just ask Atlanta bar owner Rufus Terrill.
Terrill - a former Marine - built and designed his own robot to protect the area surrounding his bar, according to The Associated Press. His nightly patrol includes the downtown area and a nearby day-care center. If some reports are to be believed, Terrill's unique take on night-time security may just stop crime in its tracks."This isn't fun," Terrill told the AP. "I don't like being here every night. I'd be able to better run my business. But I have to spend all my time being the sheriff."Now, I'm the first to admit few other "sheriffs" have a 300-pound robotic deputy, but I see no reason why the University can't take a chance to lead Louisiana in crime fighting just as it does in education.You can't argue with results, you know?The University already has the raw materials to build these robots. A Feb. 21 article in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution outlines the robots' rudimentary design, and by my estimation, it falls within what remains possible in Louisiana.

From Youtube:

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

"Crime warrants concealed carry"

From the University of Akron student pub:

By Brint Hahn
Issue date: 4/22/08


Crime on and surrounding the University of Akron has become more and more casual during the last year. There's also no doubt in my mind that it will continue to increase as the weather becomes nicer, as most crime does. What kind of environment would encourage such a bold crime? An environment full of people who are legally unable to protect themselves. That's what Students for Concealed Carry on Campus is trying to change. The current legislation requires that students with concealed carry permits leave their weapons locked in their car during class time. This would prevent any student who walks to campus from carrying their weapon at all, because there's no car to leave it in. These students face the most risk. The area around campus is flat-out dangerous. Personally, I would never consider walking or even driving around campus housing unarmed, and I never do. Car-jackings have become as popular as robberies. I choose to protect myself because armed citizens are an extremely effective deterrent. There is nothing a criminal fears more than a citizen willing and able to protect themselves. Our group, SCCC, is attempting to pass a legislation that would allow students who have concealed carry permits to carry their weapons on campus so they have the ability to protect themselves, as well as other students.Shootings, such as Virginia Tech, were premeditated attacks. The location was not random; it was chosen because it was a target-rich environment. A classroom is a large group of people in one place who are legally unable to protect themselves. We would like to change that. Before you go jumping to conclusions, we do not propose that every student should be armed. We are simply trying to allow those students who are licensed by the State of Ohio to carry a firearm to protect themselves at school just as they can at the mall, in their home or at the grocery store. If I'm able to carry my firearm at the grocery story, why not the classroom? I fail to see any difference between the two - except the fact that, under the current legislation, a classroom is comprised of people who are unable to defend themselves, whereas a grocery store is not.Who wouldn't like to see a drastic decrease in crime around campus? One thing can make that happen. It doesn't involve the police, it doesn't involve campus "patrol" and it doesn't involve security cameras or metal detectors. It will take one student who is armed and able to defending themselves against an attack. When the headline reads "Mugger shot by student in botched robbery attempt," I can guarantee you that the next mugger will think twice before targeting a student on their way home from class.

Power trip

From OU.edu:

FORMER STUDENT FACES CHARGES FOR CAMPUS FLIERS

The man accused of posting threatening fliers around OU’s campus early last month now faces charges.
Robert Lien Anderson, 38, has been charged by the District Attorney’s office with advocating unlawfulness on school grounds.
Anderson, a former OU student, was arrested Friday evening after OUPD filed a warrant, said Lt. Bruce Chan, OUPD’s public information officer.
Chan said he received phone calls from concerned members of the community regarding the threats against OU.
According to police documents, Anderson was observed posting fliers March 7 that stated “On April 21, 2008, all operations at OU Norman will cease.”
The flier also stated “OUPD cannot stop us.”
The fliers, however, are not the only curious messages OU officials have received.
According to court documents, OUPD received an e-mail that stated, “We would like your cooperation in the transfer of power. No one needs to get hurt.”
In addition, the message of the “transfer of power” also appeared in chalkings around campus April 2.
According to court documents, Anderson admitted in interrogation to making the fliers and sending the e-mail to OUPD.
This is not the first time Anderson has been arrested for acts against OU.
On April 21, 1994, Anderson was arrested for malicious injury to property and failure to leave an institute of higher learning after he “stormed the office of [then] OU president Richard Van Horn” and damaged the office, according to court documents.


On speeding tickets and tyranny

Welcome to the cold, cruel world, From The Daily Texan...

Speeding tickets: a form of tyranny?
by Augustine Miranda
On April 15, I filed.On April 16, I got taxed - but not by the federal government.It was Wednesday night at about 11 o'clock. I was driving to my humble Riverside apartment after a productive evening of video editing on campus. It was cool and dry outside. The fluorescent tint of dozens of taquería signs illuminated the cloudy silhouette of the Austin skyline in the distance. And that's when I saw it: Just a block after turning onto Riverside Drive from the I-35 frontage road, one of the Austin Police Department's finest clocked me at 45 mph in a 35 zone. He was parked, lights off, in front of a taco joint.Never mind that there was no traffic and that the nearest car in my lane was mere specks of light a couple blocks ahead. The law says nothing about traffic conditions or context, officers will remind you - absolutely nothing about judgment or observation skills.I was cordial and cooperative with the officer, even if he was cold and suspicious with me. That's his job, right? This is Riverside, after all.I explained that it was a simple mistake: I took my eyes off the speedometer momentarily but slowed down as soon as I realized my error. I told the officer that I'm a student; I live right down the road. I even had my stereo turned down all the way.He wrote me the ticket, despite the fact that my driving over the posted speed limit had endangered no one. Stone sober, hands at ten and two, eyes on the road - but I was a few miles per hour over the limit, and that's enough to tax me a couple hundred bucks.Worst of all, the officer ran a red light to give me the ticket. I would argue that his actions were more dangerous than mine, but the bottom line is that there is no more shameful and ugly tax-collecting scheme than a speed trap. Most people drive around with a fear and suspicion of cops they would not harbor if speeding tickets did not exist. Most drivers, myself included, don't break the law. We don't harm people; we just drive to work or class as we have to. We are honest, tax-paying people who exercise good judgment when we make decisions, and all we ask is to exercise judgment without fear of getting stuck with a fine of up to $278.To believe that fast driving equals bad driving is grossly naive. I would rather share the road with an alert driver who regularly drives 10 mph over the speed limit than someone who drives 10 mph under and treats their rearview mirror as a compact for applying makeup. Speed is only as dangerous as a driver's alertness. True, the faster you go, the less alertness matters in avoiding accidents. But 45 in a 35 with minimal traffic does not equal dangerous or bad driving. If you think it does, I don't trust you behind the wheel.If I am swerving or changing lanes erratically, pull me over. If I am tailgating at fast speeds in rush-hour traffic, pull me over. If I am running reds and rolling through stops at crowded intersections, by all means, pull me over. But if I'm driving like any sane person would under similar conditions, just let me go about my evening.It is a total misuse of the power and trust we lend to the police to set up speed traps and hand out tickets to broke college students. If you asked people to list their 20 biggest concerns that the police should tackle, I really doubt fining the tax base would be one of them. It puts unnecessary fear in the hearts and minds of law-abiding citizens.My dictionary software tells me that one definition of "tyranny" is "dominance achieved by threat of punishment." That sounds about right.Let's stop pretending that speeding tickets are anything but a hidden tax on otherwise law-abiding citizens.I probably don't have to spell it out - since you know I'm living off Riverside - but my bank account is not one of my stronger assets, especially since I'm graduating in four weeks and trying to save what I can (and still haven't bought the cap and gown).But somebody somewhere thinks it's a good idea to tax soon-to-be college grads a little extra, even in this economy. I mean, throw me a friggin' bone.When I get my refund check in six weeks, I will use it to pay for the offensively boring defensive driving class to dismiss the ticket. Maybe the rest I'll invest in a nice radar jammer.Miranda is a print journalism senior.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

“This is a big part of the reason I applied here — for the weed atmosphere.”

That's the University of Colorado. Here is a report from Boulder's Daily Camera about the pot "smoke out": From the story;

A crowd of about 10,000 people collectively began counting down on the University of Colorado’s Norlin Quadrangle just before 4:20 p.m. today.
Yet the massive puff of pot smoke that hovers over CU’s Boulder campus every April 20 — the date of an annual, internationally recognized celebration of marijuana — began rising over the sea of heads earlier than normal this year.
“Oh forget it,” one student said, aborting the countdown to 4:20 p.m. and lighting his pipe early. He closed his eyes, taking a deep, long drag.
“Sweet.”
Although it’s become an annual and renowned event at CU, this year’s 4/20 celebration was different in some ways than in many previous years: The crowd was so large it migrated from the long-traditional site of Farrand Field to the larger Norlin quad; festivities kicked off earlier than normal with daytime concerts; and CU police handed out zero citations.
“At this point, none are anticipated,” said CU police Cmdr. Brad Wiesley.
Officers in the past have gone to great lengths to catch people in the illegal act of smoking pot on 4/20.
In 2006, CU police dispatched undercover photographers to snap pictures of smokers. Photos of 150 alleged offenders then were posted on the department’s Web site, and witnesses were offered $50 to positively identify the suspects — who then were ticketed. Another year, smokers on Farrand were doused with sprinklers.
“We can’t do the same thing year after year,” Wiesley said hours before today's smoking began. “So I doubt we’ll do anything like the pictures. ... There’s no way our 12 to 15 officers are going to be able to deal with a crowd of 10,000. We just can’t do strong enforcement when we’re outnumbered 700 or 800 to one.”
About 15 CU officers and a half dozen deputies with the Boulder County Sheriff’s Office had a presence today among the mass of pot smokers, who bounced giant balls and tossed Frisbees through the haze. CU police did handle four medical-related calls for health issues including dehydration; two people were taken to Boulder Community Hospital.
Closer to downtown, a more “adult” 4/20 gathering also took place at Boulder’s Central Park for non-students looking to avoid the CU foot traffic. But that event had a much smaller turnout and was mostly uneventful.
The crowd size at last year’s CU gathering was rumored to have topped 5,000, Wiesley said, meaning this year’s gathering drew about double.
“I guess it’s not like they had to cut a 4 p.m. class to go do it,” Wiesley said, speculating as to why so many more people showed up. “People are not all that busy at 4:20 p.m. in the afternoon on a Sunday.”
From the steps of Norlin Library, some of the thousands present said the turnout appeared comparable to that of a peace march or protest.
“You guys need to go stand on those stairs,” one girl shouted to her friends, who were seated in a circle on the quadrangle grass. “You don’t even understand.”
Smoke-out participants — thousands of whom wore green or T-shirts promoting pot — climbed trees, played the bongos, snapped pictures and had miniature picnics.
That, of course, after they sparked the weed they had come to smoke.
CU freshman Emily Benson, 19, of Kansas City, said she thinks the decriminalization of marijuana will become a hot topic in the upcoming political season, and said she felt part of something bigger than just a smoke-out today.
“We’re at the starting point of a movement,” she said. “This is a big part of the reason I applied here — for the weed atmosphere.”
Although CU junior Max Lichtenstein, 21, isn’t into marijuana or smoking, he also felt today's event was a chance to do something “bigger” than himself. He passed out 126 Rice Krispies treats with messages attached asking that they act out against the injustices in Darfur.
“Tomorrow, when you’re sober ... call the White House at 202-456-1414,” the note read.
“I just like being generous and doing nice things,” he said. “I’m like a good Samaritan.”
CU senior Tyler Molvig, 24, said that rather than condemning the smoke-out, CU and the city should embrace it as a money-making opportunity.
“I mean, it’s gonna happen regardless,” he said.
Entrepreneur Barrett Betz, 20, conceived of the potential financial benefit 4/20 holds earlier this year, and sold peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, Hostess snack cakes and bottled water for a $1.
“Peanut butter and jelly!” he screamed to passersby who were parched and eager to satisfy their munchies. “I’m doing very well.”
One woman was hopeful Betz’s treats were charged with some special ingredients.
“Are these magical?” she asked, only to be disappointed. “Why aren’t you selling magical ones? I mean, it’s cool — but c’mon.”

KSU lacking stated alcohol policy on Web site

Here is a list of all the Kansas schools with stated alcohol policies from College Drinking Prevention.gov, according to the group's Web site, For some reason, Kansas State University is not among the colleges in Kansas with an alcohol policy on the Web site.

  • Baker University
  • Barclay College
  • Benedictine College
  • Bethany College
  • Bethel College
  • Central Christian College
  • Emporia State University
  • Fort Hays State University
  • Friends University
  • Haskell Indian Nations University
  • Kansas Wesleyan University
  • Manhattan Christian College
  • McPherson College
  • MidAmerica Nazarene College
  • Ottawa University
  • PIttsburgh State University
  • Seward County Community College
  • Southwestern College
  • Sterling College
  • University of Kansas
  • University of Saint Mary
  • Washburn University
  • Wichita State University
  • Friday, April 18, 2008

    420 tradition? Don't do it

    Watch the campus crime logs. April 20 could be a busy day. From the Daily Nebraskan, this story about the tradition of "420."



    Sunday is a well-known, illegally celebrated day.April 20th, or 420, is a day marked for marijuana lovers across the globe to stop what they're doing and celebrate bong rips, blunts, joints and any other form of activity that results in participants getting stoned.There are a lot of myths surrounding the origins of 420 - pronounced four-twenty and never four hundred and twenty. However, when it comes to information about all things dope, Steve Hager is one of the most respected scholars. Hager, a retired Drug Enforcement Agency agent and current editor and chief of High Times magazine, has investigated how April 20 became the most important day in cannabis culture and told the Daily Nebraskan his findings in an interview on April 19th of last year. Hager's research says 420 originated at a high school in San Rafael, Calif., in 1971."There were six guys with a map to an abandoned pot-patch," Hager said. "They met at a statue at 4:20 p.m."After that, Hager said the group began meeting frequently at 4:20 to get high. Use of the term exploded and is used around the planet to reference getting high. However, just because cannabis-culture enthusiasts may use the day as an excuse to go on an all-out ganja binge, weed smokers shouldn't expect to receive any slack from police officers."We realize that the day is recognized by a lot of marijuana users," said Jim Davis, education officer for University Police. "We'll be more vigilant on that day."Davis said UNPD will be on the lookout for suspicious activity. Technically, there is no law that prohibits people from being high. The act of getting high and having marijuana or drug paraphernalia on your person is cause for a citation. Davis said if a stoned person is "doing something illegal" they could be placed in Detox for either 24 hours or until a clear-headed friend picks them up.Driving stoned can also lead to a person being arrested for driving under the influence. Davis said if a person is pulled over and the officer rules out alcohol use, yet suspects the driver may be under the influence of another substance, he or she will call for a drug recognition expert, or DRE, to test the suspected stoner. There are several cues, usually found during an eye test, that the DRE will look for, Davis said.University Police have one DRE on staff but can also contact one from Lincoln Police if necessary."If there is ever a day when we are going to be looking for (marijuana smoking), it will be that day," Davis said. "Be safe, just don't do it.
    "RYANBOETEL@DAILYNEBRASKAN.COM

    Embarrassingly prominent

    The case can be made that alcohol and alcohol advertising is way too prominent on college campuses and associated with NCAA sports. The Center for Science in the Public Interest - and college presidents - make the case for us.

    From CSPI:

    WASHINGTON—More than one hundred college presidents and athletic directors today called on the National Collegiate Athletic Association to end “embarrassingly prominent” beer ads during televised NCAA basketball tournaments. In a letter to NCAA President Myles Brand, the presidents urged the NCAA’s Division I Board of Directors and Executive Committee to formally review its policies on alcohol advertising, which were last examined in 2005.
    “Given the persistent problems caused by underage and excessive college drinking, much of it in the form of beer, we find it inconceivable that the NCAA’s profiting from beer promotion during the telecasts of college basketball games comports with the best interests of higher education, sports or student welfare,” the officials wrote. “NCAA allowance of beer advertising serves to enrich broadcasters unnecessarily at the expense of the values of sports and higher education.”


    According to CSPI’s analysis of broadcasts of the semifinal and championship basketball games, the NCAA is exceeding the limits on beer ads it set for itself in 2005 of not more than 60 seconds per hour or not more than 120 seconds in any telecast. During the UCLA versus Memphis broadcast, CBS aired 200 seconds of beer advertising comprised of 15-, 20-, and 30-second spots for Bud Light, Bud Light Lime, and Miller Lite. During the North Carolina versus Kansas semifinal broadcast, CBS aired 240 seconds of beer ads. During the final on Monday night, 270 seconds of beer ads aired—more than twice what the NCAA says it allows. And none of those totals include several showings each night of Bud Light and Miller Lite sponsorship banners on the screen for five or six seconds at a time.
    “Allowing sixty seconds of beer advertising per hour of collegiate sports is bad enough,” said Tracy Downs, manager of the
    Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV, a project of the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “That’s sixty seconds too much. But exceeding that limit shows that the NCAA has a cavalier, ‘devil may care’ attitude about exposing kids to beer ads. They don’t even care enough to enforce their own policy.”
    The presidents’ letter cites TNS Media Intelligence data showing that beer was the second-ranked advertising category among the top five advertisers during the 2007 NCAA men’s basketball tournament, and that spending for ads for Anheuser-Busch and Miller Brewing Company’s beers ranked fourth and fifth among all advertisers. The data also show that demand for advertising time during the tournament is high and that more than 300 different advertisers have supported the game telecasts since 1998.
    While NCAA policies specifically forbid advertising for alcoholic beverages, they make an exception for beverages with alcohol content of six percent or less, which includes most beers.
    Since 2005, 285 NCAA-member colleges and nine college athletic conferences have endorsed a
    pledge to eliminate alcohol ads from college sports. This group includes large Division I schools such as Ohio State, Texas Tech, and the universities of Florida, Minnesota and Nebraska, in addition to many Division II and III schools.
    “Those schools recognize the hypocrisy of airing commercials for the very product that causes college administrators, coaches, and parents so much distress,” the college presidents wrote. “Alcohol ads demean the NCAA, student athletes, college prevention efforts, and help put young people at risk.”
    The Campaign for Alcohol-Free Sports TV’s national advisory council includes Tom Osborne, University of Nebraska athletic director and former U.S. Representative (R-NE); Dean E. Smith, former University of North Carolina basketball coach; and Andy Geiger, former athletic director at Ohio State.

    In March, Osborne separately urged Brand to exclude beer ads from televised sports. “Over
    y 36 years of coaching, most of the really negative occurrences that I had to deal with in regards to student-athletes involved alcohol and invariably the alcohol chosen was beer,” wrote Osborne, who noted that alcohol contributes to 70,000 sexual assaults and 1,700 deaths on college campuses each year.
    “College administrators and local law enforcement are really struggling to control the violence, vandalism, and health problems fueled by binge drinking on campus,” said George Hacker, director of the Alcohol Policies Project at CSPI. “It’s time for the NCAA to stop pouring gasoline on the fire and stop airing these ads.”


    campus crime - Bing News