The joys of going to the liberal BSU

[A 7.62 Exodus]

http://www.bsudailynews.com/students-respond-to-lack-of-policing-after-third-armed-robbery-in-4-weeks-1.2778429

I read this article while reading the school paper during breakfast. This article is a PERFECT example of why carry on campuses should be legal! The UPD up here is too lazy to go after the BG's, and are more focused on catching under age drinkers. The students are even started to get worried for their safety.

One of my favorite lines from this page is "Where are the cops when you need them?" That sums up the whole Carry on campus argument, they can't be everywhere at once.


EDIT: I played with the article, try and see if the link works. If not, the fourth link down works

 

[Scout103]

Your link isn't working brother, could you re-post the link for us?

 

[Somemedic]

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...iFXeELm2zMRpRPjlw&sig2=0jPNzoNQ5BnSVhSLI4_PJg

 

[youngda9]

The link in post #3 set off my anti virus software...the link in post #1 just didn't work. what's going on here ?

 

[OneBadV8]

Students respond to lack of policing after third armed robbery in 4 weeks - The Ball State Daily News - Ball State University

 

[Classic]

So this happened during the time they were "cracking down" on drinking at the college ball games. Nice. Armed robberies and rapes not solved but many arrests for doing what college kids have been doing for a couple hundred years. Priorities anyone?

 

[Raskolnikov]

http://http://www.bsudailynews.com/...fter-third-armed-robbery-in-4-weeks-1.2778429

I read this article while reading the school paper during breakfast. This article is a PERFECT example of why carry on campuses should be legal! The UPD up here is too lazy to go after the BG's, and are more focused on catching under age drinkers. The students are even started to get worried for their safety.

One of my favorite lines from this page is "Where are the cops when you need them?" That sums up the whole Carry on campus argument, they can't be everywhere at once.

I'd tell you that it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. But, then again, it isn't illegal to carry on a college campus (provided that you have your LTCH). The only risk you run is being thrown out of school. I'd rather be snuffed out of BSU than snuffed off the face of the earth by a two-bit criminal. No one will ever know you're carrying unless you tell/show them.

I never, ever carried concealed on campus when I was in college; I was a good little disarmed minion of a liberal university. I had too much respect for the university's policies that prohibited concealed carry on campus. University administrators: they know best. I'd never encourage or condone you breaking any rules.

 

[eldirector]

Side note: it is perfectly legal to carry on college campuses. Likely against their policy, and they could expel a student (or fire staff, or wag their finger menacingly at tenured faulty), but not against any laws.

Still ridiculous that they will practically turn a blind eye to crime when it suits them.

 

[gohard43]

Like others have said, you make the decision on whether you want to carry on campus or not.

The cops are not lazy, Muncie is unfortunately just a craphole full of criminals.

 

[Indy317]

The UPD up here is too lazy to go after the BG's, and are more focused on catching under age drinkers.

Nice slam on cops who have nothing to do with where the robberies are taking place. Their primary jurisdiction ends where the university property ends. The article you posted stated the robberies happened near campus, not on campus. As a taxpayer whose taxes support our public universities, I don't care to fund duplication of services. Instead of slamming the UPD, slam Muncie PD, or the country sheriff, or maybe ISP?

As far as the booze is concerned, they are focusing on that because there seems to be an issue with young people (especially the late 30 and younger generations) where the only drinking is to full excess. Of course then when bad things happen, UPDs all over the country get slammed for not doing anything. IU-Bloomington pretty much locks up or summons everyone when it comes to alcohol. Why? It is simple: Parents will sue at the drop of a hat when the university "turned a blind eye at the over-consumption of alcohol by precious, timid, and growing college youth. This action by the university fostered an environment of danger and death!!" Trust me, most parents would rather their kids pay the $400 shake down, I mean diversion, fee than have to fork over thousands for a funeral.

There is a % of college aged people in this country that seem addicted to ethanol. They can't stop at just one or two servings, they need seven or more servings. Yet when it comes to trying to deal with that addiction, the response is arm college kids and let them drink large amounts of a known intoxicant? I bet that will do wonders: .20 BAC and packing a nine!!

I support people being able to carry on campus, but I take issue with this post because it slams the wrong people, then seems to turn a complete blind eye to the ethanol addiction issue found on most college campuses. If the college generation wouldn't focus so much on ethanol worship, the concerns about letting them carry guns won't even exist!

 

[DC47374]

Nice slam on cops who have nothing to do with where the robberies are taking place. Their primary jurisdiction ends where the university property ends. The article you posted stated the robberies happened near campus, not on campus. As a taxpayer whose taxes support our public universities, I don't care to fund duplication of services. Instead of slamming the UPD, slam Muncie PD, or the country sheriff, or maybe ISP?

As far as the booze is concerned, they are focusing on that because there seems to be an issue with young people (especially the late 30 and younger generations) where the only drinking is to full excess. Of course then when bad things happen, UPDs all over the country get slammed for not doing anything. IU-Bloomington pretty much locks up or summons everyone when it comes to alcohol. Why? It is simple: Parents will sue at the drop of a hat when the university "turned a blind eye at the over-consumption of alcohol by precious, timid, and growing college youth. This action by the university fostered an environment of danger and death!!" Trust me, most parents would rather their kids pay the $400 shake down, I mean diversion, fee than have to fork over thousands for a funeral.

There is a % of college aged people in this country that seem addicted to ethanol. They can't stop at just one or two servings, they need seven or more servings. Yet when it comes to trying to deal with that addiction, the response is arm college kids and let them drink large amounts of a known intoxicant? I bet that will do wonders: .20 BAC and packing a nine!!

I support people being able to carry on campus, but I take issue with this post because it slams the wrong people, then seems to turn a complete blind eye to the ethanol addiction issue found on most college campuses. If the college generation wouldn't focus so much on ethanol worship, the concerns about letting them carry guns won't even exist!

Ummm....they're adults right? They're able to vote, enlist, and get married right? Ok...just checking. I love how people try to legislate morals. No amount of legislation is going to keep college students from drinking. The college students must decide for themselves not to drink! We have to quit taking their personal responsibility away from this younger generation. It's never their fault...it's ours for not nanny stating them to death. As for your other argument about if alcohol wasn't on campus they'd allow guns. I don't think I need to tell you how full of holes that argument is....do I?

 

[A 7.62 Exodus]

Nice slam on cops who have nothing to do with where the robberies are taking place. Their primary jurisdiction ends where the university property ends. The article you posted stated the robberies happened near campus, not on campus. As a taxpayer whose taxes support our public universities, I don't care to fund duplication of services. Instead of slamming the UPD, slam Muncie PD, or the country sheriff, or maybe ISP?

As far as the booze is concerned, they are focusing on that because there seems to be an issue with young people (especially the late 30 and younger generations) where the only drinking is to full excess. Of course then when bad things happen, UPDs all over the country get slammed for not doing anything. IU-Bloomington pretty much locks up or summons everyone when it comes to alcohol. Why? It is simple: Parents will sue at the drop of a hat when the university "turned a blind eye at the over-consumption of alcohol by precious, timid, and growing college youth. This action by the university fostered an environment of danger and death!!" Trust me, most parents would rather their kids pay the $400 shake down, I mean diversion, fee than have to fork over thousands for a funeral.

There is a % of college aged people in this country that seem addicted to ethanol. They can't stop at just one or two servings, they need seven or more servings. Yet when it comes to trying to deal with that addiction, the response is arm college kids and let them drink large amounts of a known intoxicant? I bet that will do wonders: .20 BAC and packing a nine!!

I support people being able to carry on campus, but I take issue with this post because it slams the wrong people, then seems to turn a complete blind eye to the ethanol addiction issue found on most college campuses. If the college generation wouldn't focus so much on ethanol worship, the concerns about letting them carry guns won't even exist!

While i do not agree with most of what you had said, i will be very polite and to the point! I personally do NOT feel like i, or this article, are slamming the wrong people. All i ever see UPD doing around campus are
A. Driving aimlessly around campus
B. Writing someone a parking ticket

BSU stresses student safety, and i have heard a dozen times, from a dozen different people, that the UPD is here to protect the students. This is why, in this article, the students are ripping the UPD a new one. Because we are always being told how "safe" BSU is, and how UPD does such a good job. I personally feel that if BSU students are getting robbed near their own home, that UPD should lead the charge on handling the situation. If you read this article, it very much makes it seem like that the locations of where the armed robberies occurred are within UPD territory. I am aware on how jurisdiction works, but that doesn't mean that the UPD can't call in and ask for more help off campus, and let the students know there will be more police in the area. Students are getting worried (not myself) and the UPD is handling the situation very poorly.

Now, not to make it seem like i thread jacked my own post, i digress. I feel like the BIGGEST issue when it comes to carrying on college campuses are the brainwashing "guns are bad" mentality. A college like BSU see's that if they allow guns to be put in the hands of college students, shooting incidents would skyrocket. Mainly due to the mega pride issues with the college "D-bags", mixed with alcohol would be a dangerous mix. People make up the "what ifs" in their head, and stick to those imaginary scenarios.

Maybe, the law makers will give people a chance to prove those "what ifs" wrong. A this point, i can rant all i want about how much BS it is that i am not allowed to carry, it still won't change people's minds on those "Evil things that kill people"

 

[Compatriot G]

As the parent of a BSU student, this concerns me. The second robbery occurred 1/2 block from my daughter's apartment. The e-mail my daughter received after the second robbery gave a slightly better description of the suspects; Five black males in a black Lexus.

Ball State PD routinely patrols the areas that would be considered "off-campus". I was stopped by BSPD one night for a plate light that was out. This was on University Ave. near Wheeling Ave. If you know Muncie, you will know this is area is not "on-campus". Ball State police officers are regular, sworn officers. They have the same jurisdiction as all other officers in Indiana.

Plus, what is "on-campus" and "off-campus" can be a bit fuzzy. As an example, the BSPD headquarters is on McKinley Ave., south of University Ave. Obviously, this would be University property. Yet, the building is surrounded by "off-campus" houses and apartments. Also, Ball State owns a fairly large apartment complex north of McGalliard Rd. on Tillotson. This is north of the football stadium. Once again, I would have to assume this is University property, but it really isn't close to "campus".

I have observed the BSPD and listened to their radio traffic. Their main focus seems to be on alcohol-related issues. While this is a big deal, one would think they might focus on trying to find a black Lexus cruising around looking for their next victim. They can always catch-up on the alcohol arrests after they find the armed robbers.

BTW, I'm not as worried about my daughter as some parents might be. My daughter has the means and ability to defend herself, if needed.

EDIT: I just looked on a map of Muncie. The third robbery occurred six blocks south of my daughter and about one block from what would be considered "on-campus".

 

[Mark 1911]

I attended BSU back in the 70s. I shared a house on SE corner of Riverside and Pauline with a bunch of guys, seven of us all together. We never locked it as people were always coming and going. Caught up to us. Someone must of been watching the house and decided to rob us. Stupid, because college guys are poor. I wasn't home when it happened, but two guys with shotguns came in and held up my roommates, took some watches, a couple of cameras, some stereo stuff. Back in those days I didn't carry, didnt even have a gun. But it could have turned out differently if any of the guys did. The cops took a report, but that was basically the end of it.

 

[Indy317]

Ummm....they're adults right? They're able to vote, enlist, and get married right? Ok...just checking. I love how people try to legislate morals. No amount of legislation is going to keep college students from drinking. The college students must decide for themselves not to drink! We have to quit taking their personal responsibility away from this younger generation. It's never their fault...it's ours for not nanny stating them to death. As for your other argument about if alcohol wasn't on campus they'd allow guns. I don't think I need to tell you how full of holes that argument is....do I?

The problem is that folks want to use the world "drinking." Drinking can equal having one beer, three beers, or ten beers. Plenty of college students want to drink to excess. They want the intoxicated state that comes with consuming mass amounts of ethanol. I view this no different than the addict who needs their crack, meth, or heroin. It is all about feeding an addiction to get into an altered state. I'm not criticizing the age limit, I'm criticizing the need for the intoxicated state.

Everyone blast the nanny state until it is them or their loved ones/friends who need help, then they are all for the nanny state. They blast the nanny state, until they want some benefit that derived from the nanny state. They want the nanny state emergency medical service, in case Johnny or Suzy ODs on ethanol. They want the nanny fire department, in case Johnny or Suzy set their apartment/door room ablaze while drunk. These same people also want these nanny service providers to be funded by everyone, not just themselves. Many want the nanny service highway department as well, and demand others be taxed to provide smooth, paved roadways at a much higher cost than just putting down some gravel. Then we have others that want the nanny service of civil courts, so that if they are wronged, they can have the nanny government make someone else pay.

So DC47374, which nanny parts of government do you support and which ones do you not support? Yes, let young people figure out their own personal responsibility. Let them go and drink fifteen beers and encourage them to carry their Glocks while doing so! I always read on INGO that alcohol and guns don't mix. I also read that college kids "are going to drink," and then folks claim universities should allow guns on the property? I guess when it comes to college, most people think alcohol and guns do mix?

 

[Indy317]

I personally do NOT feel like i, or this article, are slamming the wrong people. All i ever see UPD doing around campus are
A. Driving aimlessly around campus
B. Writing someone a parking ticket

Ball State PD routinely patrols the areas that would be considered "off-campus". I was stopped by BSPD one night for a plate light that was out. This was on University Ave. near Wheeling Ave. If you know Muncie, you will know this is area is not "on-campus".

Well, if BSU PD regularly patrols off-campus, then yes, they should be looking for the robbery suspects. However, since it appears that the thought here is "college students are going to get drunk, no if, ands, or buts" then people will have to understand that BSU PD officers are going to have to deal with situations that arise from people being intoxicated: Finding drunks passed out in the street, urinating on someone's fence/porch, checking on a clearly drunk/drugged coed being escorted by a "friend", loud noise complaints, etc.. So the students want to be able to get drunk and do what drunks do, which usually involves police needing to be called in some cases, yet they also demand BSU PD look for robbery suspects. I can't even imagine how busy it is at BSU PD on a Friday or Saturday night, but if it is anything like other universities, it is going from run to run to run. If the students didn't drink to excess, my guess is that would leave plenty of time for BSU to patrol for the robbers. I find it hard to imagine BSU PD is writing that many tickets at midnight, but then again, maybe it isn't the party campus it used to be known for in the past.

For the media, the need for college students to get into an intoxicated state with something bad happening will always be the bigger story. How many people have been robbed over the years at IU Bloomington? Now name the victims of those robberies. Most likely can't without a Google search. Now, does everyone know the name Lauren Spierer? Most people don't know that there were about four or so sexual assaults reported to IUPD within the last two months unless they read the school newspaper. But don't worry, everyone knows about a young college coed, who was out getting intoxicated, is missing.

The media focus is always going to be on the bad things that happen at the hands of college kids when college kids drink. The only reason these robberies are making the news is because they are likely the same suspects. I actually have seen just as much news media on the Anderson, Ind. robberies that were taking place in a city park. I remember a few years ago the big four vs one girl fight up at BSU. All college aged girls, most if not all were students, ended up breaking a girls arm. Full news story on all major media, interviews with the victim wearing her cast, booking photos plastered on all media outlets, etc.. It is because it deals with the issue of the addiction of needing to be intoxicated and our young people. So it isn't surprising that schools are more focused on the alcohol issue.

 

[jrogers]

there seems to be an issue with young people (especially the late 30 and younger generations) where the only drinking is to full excess.

Do you have any support for this claim other than exclaiming "Those Damn Young People!" while impotently shaking your fist in the air?

There is a % of college aged people in this country that seem addicted to ethanol.

Yes, and we call those people alcoholics. Have you forgotten what it is like to be under (at a guess) 60, or are you just not invited to any good parties?

The problem is that folks want to use the world "drinking." Drinking can equal having one beer, three beers, or ten beers. Plenty of college students want to drink to excess. They want the intoxicated state that comes with consuming mass amounts of ethanol. I view this no different than the addict who needs their crack, meth, or heroin. It is all about feeding an addiction to get into an altered state. I'm not criticizing the age limit, I'm criticizing the need for the intoxicated state.

Using a drug to alter consciousness is not equivalent to addiction. Feel free to "view it" any way you like, but know that this flies in the face of reality. Humans (and animals) have been intentionally altering their consciousnesses since the beginning of time. Your crusade to decry this is misguided and not particularly original.

 

[Indy317]

Do you have any support for this claim other than exclaiming "Those Damn Young People!" while impotently shaking your fist in the air?

Yes. I look at enough family members and friends and I see people who must drink to excess. Some drink a lot, but likely don't get "drunk" because if you consume enough ethanol, one usually builds up a tolerance.

Yes, and we call those people alcoholics. Have you forgotten what it is like to be under (at a guess) 60, or are you just not invited to any good parties?

I'm in my 30s. I did my share of partying, I have friends that did their share of drinking to excess. I do have to say that the friends I hung with seemed to have let the mass consumption of ethanol stop once they hit their mid-20s, having kids, getting married. However, others I know would rather spend thousands of dollars on ethanol instead of paying down debt, saving for the kids college, etc..

Using a drug to alter consciousness is not equivalent to addiction.

But it can be, and more and more things seem to be heading that way. Alcohol causes all sorts of issues. There is a reason you need a slew of cops in the Broad Ripple Village bar area and the Wholesale District bar area. I guess what I'm seeing is plenty of people who can't stop drinking to intoxication, and to me it seems many college kids are ending up addicts. It is one thing to party in college, then still consume a beer or two every weekend. I'm seeing people who can't change, they need to consume a large amount of alcohol, two or three servings a day, then double that or more while tailgating, at a concert, etc..

Feel free to "view it" any way you like, but know that this flies in the face of reality. Humans (and animals) have been intentionally altering their consciousnesses since the beginning of time. Your crusade to decry this is misguided and not particularly original.

And since the beginning of time, those humans have been allowed to deal with the consequences of their actions. However, we have started to nanny these people: Emergency medical services paid for by others save them when they go too far. We have public, instead of private, roadways where they are allowed to operate heavy machinery and kill others...requiring numerous laws and checkpoints to try and keep them off the public roadways, we save their spouses and children when they start beating them. We allow those who can't control their spending on their altering to wipe the slate clean and screw creditors with bankruptcy filings. When will the nanny state stop taking other people's money to save those who wish to consume chemicals to alter their consciousness?

 

[JdsBiff]

The BSU PD patrols everything in the area bordered by the White river north to McGalliard and from Wheeling to Tillotson. That area covers most of the rentals used by student along with the Ball Hospital area. The Muncie PD also patrols it but not as much as BSUPD. IMO the Muncie PD needs to step up patrols in that area more and to stop relying on the BSUPD.

 

[DC47374]

The problem is that folks want to use the world "drinking." Drinking can equal having one beer, three beers, or ten beers. Plenty of college students want to drink to excess. They want the intoxicated state that comes with consuming mass amounts of ethanol. I view this no different than the addict who needs their crack, meth, or heroin. It is all about feeding an addiction to get into an altered state. I'm not criticizing the age limit, I'm criticizing the need for the intoxicated state.

Everyone blast the nanny state until it is them or their loved ones/friends who need help, then they are all for the nanny state. They blast the nanny state, until they want some benefit that derived from the nanny state. They want the nanny state emergency medical service, in case Johnny or Suzy ODs on ethanol. They want the nanny fire department, in case Johnny or Suzy set their apartment/door room ablaze while drunk. These same people also want these nanny service providers to be funded by everyone, not just themselves. Many want the nanny service highway department as well, and demand others be taxed to provide smooth, paved roadways at a much higher cost than just putting down some gravel. Then we have others that want the nanny service of civil courts, so that if they are wronged, they can have the nanny government make someone else pay.

So DC47374, which nanny parts of government do you support and which ones do you not support? Yes, let young people figure out their own personal responsibility. Let them go and drink fifteen beers and encourage them to carry their Glocks while doing so! I always read on INGO that alcohol and guns don't mix. I also read that college kids "are going to drink," and then folks claim universities should allow guns on the property? I guess when it comes to college, most people think alcohol and guns do mix?

Apparently you have no concept of what are deemed "services" and what is deemed a "nanny state" The governments only purpose for existing is the following: Maintain social order (law), Provide public services(FD, PD, Roads), to provide for the national security and a common defense (Self-Explanatory) and to provide for and control the economic system.
What you are describing above would fall under the Public Services section of the purposes of government.
The government was not formed to force YOUR opinions on others. It doesn't matter if you think College kids shouldn't drink, binge, become alcoholics.....it's simply not your business. I'm curious as to why you would think you should have any control over someone not related to you in any way shape or form?
A nanny state exists when the government thinks it knows what is better for you than you do. I.E. New York City. Who said alcohol and guns mix? lol...there you go reading what you want. The students that are carrying guns would most likely be the same adults who will carry after their college careers are over. We are all allowed to drink whenever we want (I choose not to, but I don't inflict that upon others). Honestly I find your gross generalization about college students offensive.
Perhaps you should reflect upon what you've said and ask yourself if you have indeed become indoctrinated into believing a nanny state is good. I would prefer to be allowed to defend myself with my firearm on a college campus if I were a student at BSU. The simple fact is that crooks don't care about laws.
Before you attack my credibility I'm currently a POL/SCI Major focusing on Constitutional Law.