KU students learn hard lesson on home security / LJWorld.com

Lawrence and Douglas county

Thieves strike twice at house while occupants gone for long stretches

August 21, 2007

Jenny Ries says she and her 11 roommates feel violated.

The house they're renting just blocks from the Kansas University campus was broken into not once but twice in the past few days. Two laptop computers were stolen, four doors were broken down and a window was shattered.

Ries, a KU senior from Apple Valley, Minn., said it could have been even worse. "We think we caught them in the act the second time because they didn't get the job done," she said.

As students return to school, police say they should be vigilant about safeguarding themselves and their property.

Ries' laptop was the first one stolen, in the initial break-in. She said she and her roommates, all members of Kappa Kappa Gamma sorority, left a window unlocked when they went to participate in recruitment week events. Someone lifted the window and made off with her computer.

For Ries, a journalism major, the computer is essential to her schoolwork.

The next night, Saturday, a window was shattered and another laptop was taken. A 37-inch plasma TV was stolen from the house next door, home to more Kappa Kappa Gamma women.

Mackenzie McClelland, a San Diego senior who is one of Ries' roommates, said she's convinced someone watched her for the past week and learned the recruitment week schedule, which kept the women out of their home for 14 hours a day. "We just feel that we've been violated. It's a violation of our privacy," she said. "It's really sad that this world we're living in, we have to be so suspicious."

But the women are taking steps so that they won't be victims again. In addition to simple steps like placing dowel rods in sliding doors and windows, McClelland also purchased motion detectors from a local hardware store. Ries said a "hard-core security system" would be installed soon.

Sgt. Paul Fellers, Lawrence police spokesman, said prevention, like the steps taken by the women, is the best action to take.

"Certainly, in our community, it's wise to lock your apartments and vehicles," he said. "Keep your valuables out of sight."

If residents see someone suspicious in the neighborhood, Fellers said police want to know. "We'll be glad to come and check out the individual and make sure they're not casing the area," he said.

Copy and paste the link:

LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

compmd (anonymous) says…

Clearly, if you see a dude walking around with a girly laptop, shoot him.
August 21, 2007 at 7:38 a.m.
flyin_squirrel (anonymous) says…

This is taking place in the Oread. Maybe our police department should focus on real crimes, rather than sending 4 to 6 officers into the college bars looking for minors drinking. Which is more important, catching 20 year olds having a beer or a burgular breaking into houses? Since we only have 14 officers on patrol at night, the LPD must feel catching 20 year olds is more important since almost a third of our officers are chasing petty issues. And the best part is Last Call isn't one of the bars they are visiting.
August 21, 2007 at 8:37 a.m.
50YearResident (anonymous) says…

Burglars will learn "Hard Lessons" when they break into a Concealed License holders house.

Burglars, beware of new laws for Kansas homeowners, no retreat necessary to defend one's home!
August 21, 2007 at 8:38 a.m.
cowboy (anonymous) says…

More often than not it is someone you know , choose your friends carefully.
August 21, 2007 at 8:40 a.m.
theifoncross (anonymous) says…

Is there a different number to call or just the emergency ?

If residents see someone suspicious in the neighborhood, Fellers said police want to know. "We'll be glad to come and check out the individual and make sure they're not casing the area," he said.
August 21, 2007 at 8:44 a.m.
cowboy (anonymous) says…

you can call the non-emergency number
August 21, 2007 at 8:46 a.m.
onceinawhile (anonymous) says…

I agree about more police officers patrolling the Oread neighborhood. There are hardly ever any officers in that area, which is much darker and scarier than downtown on Mass. St.
August 21, 2007 at 8:52 a.m.
jimincountry (anonymous) says…

Is it legal to shoot perps while breaking the window, or must we wait until they're inside?
August 21, 2007 at 9:01 a.m.
pace (anonymous) says…

a faternity bunch has rented a large house south of campus. Are the terms brothers and sisters the reason the ridiculous limit of 2 unrelated people renting restriction does not apply.
August 21, 2007 at 9:31 a.m.
riverat (Joe Hyde) says…

When you have a group of students living together (renting or leasing a house or apartment) the hardest thing for observant police and neighbors to decide is whether someone entering the structure actually belongs there, or is authorized by the renters to be there.

It's natural for neighbors and police to be watching for suspicious behavior. Problem is, it's also natural for the police and neighbors to mind their own business and not intrude on the normal comings and goings of students. This hesitation about intruding , or doing what may feel like "spying on neighbors" is especially relevant because college kids do like to party a lot, or just have friends come over a lot.

The first few weeks, maybe even the first few months, of university classes are when students like the theft victims in this story are at their most vulnerable. The second most vulnerable period is just before spring semester classes are finished; that is, just before school lets out for the summer.

What would be cool is if the police had the equipment and a program where they could set up some Lawrence apartments and rental houses as traps to catch thieves (and the fences who receive stolen property). Concealed surveillance cameras could be installed at the request of willing students, if they and the police agree that their apartment or rental house contains enough pricey items that it's at risk of being targeted by burglars or robbers.

The terrible thing about thefts like this is that in some cases the items are not insured. And the loss of something as critical as a laptop computer (with information stored on hard drive) can impact a student's course work so profoundly that it derails his or her college career.
August 21, 2007 at 9:46 a.m.
esubrett (anonymous) says…

Not to make light of the subject but how does a house occupied by eleven women not have at least one person at home at any given time? Hope they catch this person or people real soon.
August 21, 2007 at 9:48 a.m.
Bubbles (anonymous) says…

theifoncross (Anonymous) says:

If residents see someone suspicious in the neighborhood, Fellers said police want to know. "We'll be glad to come and check out the individual and make sure they're not casing the area," he said
?????????????????

Someone suspicious? That would be half the population in town.
August 21, 2007 at 9:57 a.m.
BrianR (anonymous) says…

"...four doors were broken down and a window was shattered."

How does this square with Sgt, Fellers' statement that people should lock things? Locking doors and windows didn't appear to help in this case.
August 21, 2007 at 10:01 a.m.
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

flyin_squirrel~ Condolences on your underage bust. Sucks to get caught, but don't let that bitterness consume you.

In answer to your question of importance--yes, it's important to catch ditzy underage kids "having a beer" (translation: getting sh**faced), since they're likely to drive their sorry *$$es home and endanger their own and others' lives.

It's hard to measure just HOW important it is to stop drunks and underage drinkers, since the lives saved are an unmeasurable statistic. But just because we can't point to dozens of individuals who would not be here if Biff, Corky, Binky, and Ted had taken them out while racing around town drunk doesn't mean that the arrests of those drunks did not save lives.

As for catching burglars in the act--kindly explain how that should work. Are the cops supposed to guess which house is going to be hit on any given night, then hide behind a tree to catch the thief in the act? Even if all bars were closed and all available cops were patrolling the streets, how likely is it that they would see a burglary in action and be able to stop it?

Police presence in all neighborhoods is desirable, but if you've only got X number of cops available, should they all be on "neighborhood watch" in order to prevent the nonviolent theft of Muffy's laptop or should we station some of them at bars in order to prevent definite instances of drunk driving?

In a city rolling in municipal wealth, we'd have cops galore for both duties, but in reality, it might be better to concentrate on crimes that will likely involve injury/death of victims and that are easy to prevent. Which statistic do you think is greater: number of victims killed or maimed by drunk drivers or by having household goods stolen?

Since most burglars choose a house that is unlocked, McClelland (in story above) is probably right--the thief was likely watching the place and knew no one would hear a window being broken during the 2nd hit. If the place had been secured initially, and the thief had not been able to get in through an unlocked window, it's likely (statistically speaking) that he would've gone elsewhere and never known what valuables were in the house.

Locked doors and windows, timed lights, motion-sensing lights, motion-sensing noise devices (such as those that play a recording of dogs barking), neighborhood watches, and other preventive measures are the best bet. And, of course, the tried-and-true bucket of water perched precariously over each door and window, ready to dump onto any intruder...
August 21, 2007 at 10:07 a.m.
Baille (anonymous) says…

You shoot someone, you damned well better be right. An honest but mistaken belief is no defense under the law, and felony manslaughter is still felony manslaughter no matter how well intentioned you were when you capped his ass.

34.--crimes against persons
21-3403. Voluntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being committed:
...
(b) upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force under K.S.A. 21-3211, 21-3212 or 21-3213 and amendments thereto.

Voluntary manslaughter is a severity level 3, person felony.
August 21, 2007 at 10:40 a.m.
flyin_squirrel (anonymous) says…

Pywacker,
Just because someone is in a bar, doesn't mean they are drinking and driving. I agree drunk driving is serious and should be dealt with but our LPD isn't going after drunk drivers, they have made getting minors their priority. Lawrence has had numerous fatalities in the last year involving drunk drivers, and all were of age (Tennessee St,, O'connell Road, 23rd & Iowa).

Our LPD has a "Bar car" that has two to four officers assigned to finding minors drinking. If we only have 14 officers on patrol every night, no wonder burgularies and drunk driving fatalities are up.

And no, I am old enough to drink, just tired of seeing our LPD go after petty crimes in comparison to guns and drug use at Last Call, burgularies, and drunk driving fatalities.
August 21, 2007 at 11:31 a.m.
cornflakegirl (anonymous) says…

The non-emergency number for the Lawrence Police Department is 732-7509. 911 should only be used for life-threatening emergencies.
August 21, 2007 at 11:35 a.m.
hipper_than_hip (anonymous) says…

There's more money to be made by the court system in arresting MIPs, drunken drivers, etc., than there is in arresting a homeless person or career criminal.
August 21, 2007 at 11:52 a.m.
theifoncross (anonymous) says…

Thanks Cornflakeguru! By chance do You have The non-emergency number for The A-TEAM ?
August 21, 2007 at noon
Pywacket (anonymous) says…

squirrel~ That's b-u-r-g-l-a-r-i-e-s, not "burgularies." The root word is "burgle." There is no "burgule." Sigh.......

You seem intimately familiar with the police department's priorities and methods. I assume there's a good reason why you know all about the "bar car" policy, and it's probably not because you're a police officer.

Stopping underage people from drinking in a bar is not going after "petty crime." Their youth makes them more likely to get into trouble (drinking too much, exercising poor judgment about whether to drive, lacking the experience to avoid accidents). So it is hardly a waste of time to target these kids. Also, do you really think that, if a carload of cops is checking out a bar, they're going to cheerfully wave goodbye to drunks who are on their way out of the parking lot? I suspect they catch more than a few drunk drivers (regardless of age) by concentrating personnel at the bars.

Obviously, the cops can't prevent ALL drunk driving incidents. Again--it's easy (for people who want to ignore the obvious) to discount all the deaths and injuries that are prevented by police intervention, since there are no screaming headlines (outside of The Onion) proclaiming, "Six students did NOT die in a fiery crash at 2:30 a.m. Tuesday after a drunken John Doe was thwarted by police in his efforts to drive his equally drunken friends home from the (insert bar name here)."

Not sure what your point is in mentioning specific locations of drunk-driving crashes. Maybe you're trying to say we need MORE police presence as people leave bar parking lots. I agree! If the Iowa crash you mention is the one in which a Tongie guy's Mustang hit a semi, killing him and his friend, those guys were indeed at a bar (I believe it was the Cadillac Ranch), and it's too bad they were not caught as they left the place.

Maybe if the police that night hadn't been so busy patrolling dark neighborhoods on the off chance of catching a would-be burglar, they could've been there to arrest that kid before he killed himself and his friend... (I'm being facetious, of course, to try to illustrate how absurd it is to read about one crime and blame the police for not being there due to their efforts at preventing or solving another crime.)
August 21, 2007 at 12:48 p.m.
Confrontation (anonymous) says…

(From the Police Dept Website): "Non-emergency calls for Police service should be directed to the Douglas County dispatch center at (785) 832-7509."
August 21, 2007 at 1:50 p.m.
mom_of_three (anonymous) says…

For those people with guns - you may not even need to shoot them....

just pointing the gun may be enough or shooting above their heads as a warning....but then again, if they end up with a gun, you may want to shoot to wound....

If I am catching someone breaking in, I would take their picture before they ran off, so I would be able to identify them....i am getting really good at taking pictures with one hand, and weilding the ball bat with the other. So when the flash blinds them, I smack them with the bat......

or maybe I skip the picture and knock them senseless with the bat......then it would be easy to take a picture...
August 21, 2007 at 4:20 p.m.
flyin_squirrel (anonymous) says…

Pywacker,

There were police officers at the Cadillac Ranch that night, but they were more concerned with busting people leaving the bar with drinks than they were with stopping drunks from driving.

Go to any busy bar at closing and you will see the same thing, hundreds of drunks leaving in their cars while the police watch.
August 21, 2007 at 9:57 p.m.
VoiceOfReason (anonymous) says…

You don't need a concealed carry license to have a gun (loaded or not) in your own home. You only need the license to carry it concealed in public.

And the law in Kansas has been clear for years that you don't need to retreat to protect yourself in your own home. Many states have recently passed the no-retreat laws (something like 45 of them have it now), but Kansas has had one for years. The basis for the law is that someone being in your house illegally, while you're there, is sufficient evidence to conclude that your life is in danger. Lethal force is considered justifiable defense, in that case. Personally, I don't want to have to quiz the guy on his (or her, I suppose) intentions before I defend myself, so the law makes sense to me. If you don't like that, and you'd rather engage the criminal in a discussion about intent, then, by all means, you can certainly do that, instead.
August 22, 2007 at 12:57 a.m.