[graciegirl]

I feel no differently here than I did in Ohio, that this is a reasonably safe place and I go about my business in the same way as I did up there. I notice people and their behaviors, always have. Most are the usual type of folks I am used to. Some are more aggressive in their manner, but that seems almost geographic and is probably quite usual to them. Midwesternes will probably be polite to you right up to when they gut you and hang you from a tree.

I don't want to tempt someone to steal my golfclubs so I park around the back of country clubs when we have lunch after golf. I am blessed to have not one but two traveling companions most of the time here with my husband and daughter. Ditto in our home. I feel quite safe, day or night. Don't really care for expensive jewelry, but would wrestle any body to the floor who was gonna steal my stainless steel dutch oven.

I was VERY fearful, nearly sick with fear when our Helene had cancer and I worry way too much about our grandchildren because they too haven't had any bad things or awful things happen to them. I think my worries are normal, but who knows. I am frequently told by my children to "chill".

[2BNTV]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

I feel no differently here than I did in Ohio, that this is a reasonably safe place and I go about my business in the same way as I did up there. I notice people and their behaviors, always have. Most are the usual type of folks I am used to. Some are more aggressive in their manner, but that seems almost geographic and is probably quite usual to them. Midwesternes will probably be polite to you right up to when they gut you and hang you from a tree.

I don't want to tempt someone to steal my golfclubs so I park around the back of country clubs when we have lunch after golf. I am blessed to have not one but two traveling companions most of the time here with my husband and daughter. Ditto in our home. I feel quite safe, day or night. Don't really care for expensive jewelry, but would wrestle any body to the floor who was gonna steal my stainless steel dutch oven.

I was VERY fearful, nearly sick with fear when our Helene had cancer and I worry way too much about our grandchildren because they too haven't had any bad things or awful things happen to them. I think my worries are normal, but who knows. I am frequently told by my children to "chill".

Another great post by Gracie. It puts things in the proper perspective in that our health anfd the health of our love ones are what's most important.

One must be concerned about our safety but awareness and not doing anything to put ourselves in unheeed danger are important. OP has stated some tips on what needs to be done to ensure safety. I think TV is a safe place to live and refuse to be consumed of "what might happen if" scenarios.

[PennBF]

I honestly don't understand why some have a strong reluctance to set boundries and consequences? Accomplishing these does not mean there is fear or that it is because of being older although there may be a connection between life's experiences and recognizing when you are enabling future bad behavior or not setting boundries.
I have noted a host of reasons to avoid these when a resident commits a felony and in particular assult, robbery, etc. Some make "jokes", some blame the victium (e.g. age of fear), some try to bully by intimidating the writer into "shutting up", some mock the suggestions, and so on. All of these
avoid setting boundries or establishing community consequences for abusing
the privilege of using the terrific amenities we all enjoy.
I am not in fear as I have worked in some pretty sensitive areas/cities,
have traveled all over the world and in some "bad" areas. My age does not
dictate a fear but my age does recognize that without boudries and
consequences people have no reason to change. Avoiding the discussion
through the above attempts at "killing" an interchange of ideas is only a form of denial.

[cappyjon431]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I honestly don't understand why some have a strong reluctance to set boundries and consequences? Accomplishing these does not mean there is fear or that it is because of being older although there may be a connection between life's experiences and recognizing when you are enabling future bad behavior or not setting boundries.
I have noted a host of reasons to avoid these when a resident commits a felony and in particular assult, robbery, etc. Some make "jokes", some blame the victium (e.g. age of fear), some try to bully by intimidating the writer into "shutting up", some mock the suggestions, and so on. All of these
avoid setting boundries or establishing community consequences for abusing
the privilege of using the terrific amenities we all enjoy.
I am not in fear as I have worked in some pretty sensitive areas/cities,
have traveled all over the world and in some "bad" areas. My age does not
dictate a fear but my age does recognize that without boudries and
consequences people have no reason to change. Avoiding the discussion
through the above attempts at "killing" an interchange of ideas is only a form of denial.

For the sake of encouraging discussion and an "interchange of ideas," I am still looking for any evidence of residents committing felonies. You suggested reading Monday's paper to see all the arrests of TV residents. I replied that I do read the police blotter every Monday and the large majority of those arrested were residents of outlying communities and that those who were TV residents usually were arrested for misdemeanors. I asked for you to provide info on "all the TV residents who were committing felonies" but as far as I can tell you are refusing to participate in this interchange of ideas.

I have no problem with suggesting taking away amenity privileges for convicted felons (even though some suggest this is unenforceable), but I still don't see too many TV residents committing crimes (especially felonies). Once again, If I am wrong, please document all these criminals residing in TV.

In addition, I don't see taking away pickleball, swimming, shuffleboard and golfing privileges as much of a deterrent to those who truly want to commit a crime.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by cappyjon431

For the sake of encouraging discussion and an "interchange of ideas," I am still looking for any evidence of residents committing felonies. You suggested reading Monday's paper to see all the arrests of TV residents. I replied that I do read the police blotter every Monday and the large majority of those arrested were residents of outlying communities and that those who were TV residents usually were arrested for misdemeanors. I asked for you to provide info on "all the TV residents who were committing felonies" but as far as I can tell you are refusing to participate in this interchange of ideas.

I have no problem with suggesting taking away amenity privileges for convicted felons (even though some suggest this is unenforceable), but I still don't see too many TV residents committing crimes (especially felonies). Once again, If I am wrong, please document all these criminals residing in TV.

In addition, I don't see taking away pickleball, swimming, shuffleboard and golfing privileges as much of a deterrent to those who truly want to commit a crime.

Yes, PennBF who are these people?

[janmcn]

What about registered sex offenders? Where do you draw the line?

[cappyjon431]

Originally Posted by janmcn

What about registered sex offenders? Where do you draw the line?

Very good question. If someone committed one of these offenses 30 years ago but moved into TV and has been living in TV for many years (paying the amenity fee each month), would it be legally/morally right to take away their amenities for crime committed decades ago?

Of course I am more concerned with all of these current "bad guys" that now live in TV.

[Skybo]

Convicted felons lose many civil rights, depending on the State, such as the right to vote, own a firearm, hold political office, certain employment opportunities, government assistance/housing, etc., etc. However, I don’t think it would be legal for an individual community or development to arbitrarily deny access to facilities based on a felony conviction, beyond what is allowed or required by law. Would it? I don’t know...might be a good question for the “ask a lawyer” section, strictly as a point of interest. But I agree with Cappyjon...I don’t see this as a big problem (felonious Villagers).

As far as registered sex offenders, they have their own (State mandated) requirements as far as where they can live and what they can do.

[PennBF]

I give up..It is not possible to have reasonable discussions when some are in denial. If you read the paper on a regular basis you will note the high number of felonies and unfortunately a good portion are persons under the age of 65.
I don't intend to try to defend the number or the need for boundries and consequence's as when there is a strong indication of denials or need to
take a negative or argumental position regardless of facts then it is useless to try to have a serious debate. It does not take a lot of research to see the felonies documented in the paper with "The Villages" as location of residence. To deny this is to (a) indicate a lack of reading the paper on Mondays with the list of crimes and residence of the perosns and/or (b) denial that it happens and/or (c) just trying to argue for the sake of filling in down time. None of which deserves either an answer or further waste of time.
PS: In some cases DUI is a felony and puts the others using the roads at risk. To downplay a DUI as though it is just a little infraction is sad as it is a very serious problem and I feel confident the average Law Enforcement Officer would not say it is just a minor violation of the law.

[paulandjean]

I am pretty certain that we do have convicted felons living side by side with us. Many however could be new convictions or from many years past.No sweat.

[Bogie Shooter]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I give up..It is not possible to have reasonable discussions when some are in denial. If you read the paper on a regular basis you will note the high number of felonies and unfortunately a good portion are persons under the age of 65.
I don't intend to try to defend the number or the need for boundries and consequence's as when there is a strong indication of denials or need to
take a negative or argumental position regardless of facts then it is useless to try to have a serious debate. It does not take a lot of research to see the felonies documented in the paper with "The Villages" as location of residence. To deny this is to (a) indicate a lack of reading the paper on Mondays with the list of crimes and residence of the perosns and/or (b) denial that it happens and/or (c) just trying to argue for the sake of filling in down time. None of which deserves either an answer or further waste of time.
PS: In some cases DUI is a felony and puts the others using the roads at risk. To downplay a DUI as though it is just a little infraction is sad as it is a very serious problem and I feel confident the average Law Enforcement Officer would not say it is just a minor violation of the law.

As a reasonable discussion. Could you define what is a high number? I too read the paper and have never seen a high number of Villages residences being cited for anything.

[cappyjon431]

Originally Posted by PennBF

I give up..It is not possible to have reasonable discussions when some are in denial. If you read the paper on a regular basis you will note the high number of felonies and unfortunately a good portion are persons under the age of 65.
I don't intend to try to defend the number or the need for boundries and consequence's as when there is a strong indication of denials or need to
take a negative or argumental position regardless of facts then it is useless to try to have a serious debate. It does not take a lot of research to see the felonies documented in the paper with "The Villages" as location of residence. To deny this is to (a) indicate a lack of reading the paper on Mondays with the list of crimes and residence of the perosns and/or (b) denial that it happens and/or (c) just trying to argue for the sake of filling in down time. None of which deserves either an answer or further waste of time.
PS: In some cases DUI is a felony and puts the others using the roads at risk. To downplay a DUI as though it is just a little infraction is sad as it is a very serious problem and I feel confident the average Law Enforcement Officer would not say it is just a minor violation of the law.

Claiming folks are in denial is a cop out. You wanted to have conversation and an interchange of ideas, but when you are confronted with an opinion different than your own you "give up."

I agree--READ the paper, Monday's Daily Sun. The police blotter. I read it every Monday and have for the past six months. I have found that for the most part, the LARGE majority of crimes reported in the police blotter are committed by folks RESIDING outside TV. There were approximately forty arrests reported in last Monday's blotter (if someone still has a copy lying around, I would appreciate your input here) and I believe only two were arrests of TV residents. That is representitive of what I have seen in the past six months, every Monday. I asked you politely where you got this info about all these felons living in TV and you have yet to provide the info except to claim "read the paper," which I do daily. You can bet I'll give a synopsis of next Monday's blotter.

You claim "To deny this is to (a) indicate a lack of reading the paper on Mondays with the list of crimes and residence of the perosns and/or (b) denial that it happens and/or (c) just trying to argue for the sake of filling in down time." You forgot (d) You are just plain wrong but don't like it when someone has an opinion different from yours. Support your argument with evidence and I will happily admit I am wrong.

As to DUI, I think we both agree that it is a serious crime and I am certainly not down playing it, in fact, I am surprised that the problem is not bigger than reported in the Sun (I have left the squares at 9:30ish on many occasions and seen my share of those who I felt shouldn't be driving). The fact remains there was only one TV resident reported for DUI in the last police blotter. That is the only fact that we have--hardly a bunch of felons living in our midst that we need to "take away their amenity privileges."

[CarolSells]

but in just a few minutes' time I was able to find these recent stories:

Villages resident arrested in Internet sex operation
Wednesday, September 7, 2011 at 8:02 am (Updated: September 8, 8:46 am A resident of The Villages found more than the “taboo couplings” he was allegedly seeking on the Internet, he ended up meeting a sheriff’s office detective who charged him with seeking to meet a minor for sex.
********* ********, 62, was arrested on Wednesday, Aug. 31, for reportedly trying to meet a man and his 14-year-old nephew for a sexual encounter, according to a sheriff’s office report.
**********was arrested at his home about 11:30 a.m. after admitting to a sheriff’s detective that he was the person they were communicating with on the Internet and telephone, according to sheriff’s Capt. Kevin Hofecker.

New Dangerous Trend Hits The Villages Sexting while walking
Last Wednesday, ******* *****, 87, a sexy, cougar resident of the ridiculously expensive condo neighborhood adjacent to Spanish Springs, was taking her morning walk while talking on her cell phone.She subsequently started sexting photos of her brand new cosmetic breast enhancements to Gary Gigolo, a 32-year-old-man with whom she had danced at Katy Belles. And now Mrs. Robinson may wind up at the same North Carolina prison where Bernie Madoff resides.
Note by me: This was not Mr. Midnight it was a cop).


Posted 11/8/2011 by Gracie:
The Daily Sun reported this morning that a man who lives on Heathrow Avenue in The Villages was arrested Saturday at his residence here for attempting to murder his wife with a large knife.

Just trying to help out Penn with his statistics here. Not saying that there are bunches.

[Skybo]

Originally Posted by CarolSells

New Dangerous Trend Hits The Villages Sexting while walking [/B]
Last Wednesday, ******* *****, 87, a sexy, cougar resident of the ridiculously expensive condo neighborhood adjacent to Spanish Springs, was taking her morning walk while talking on her cell phone.She subsequently started sexting photos of her brand new cosmetic breast enhancements to Gary Gigolo, a 32-year-old-man with whom she had danced at Katy Belles. And now Mrs. Robinson may wind up at the same North Carolina prison where Bernie Madoff resides.
Note by me: This was not Mr. Midnight it was a cop).

This came from http://thevillagesmorsel.com/, which bills itself as a “satirical news service for The Villages”.

I especially like the "Gary Gigolo and Mrs. Robinson" references. lol

If you think the “sexting” crime is bad...check out the baby left in a stroller!!!! OMG There is crime in the Villages!
http://thevillagesmorsel.com/Archives.html

[ceejay]

Originally Posted by CarolSells

but in just a few minutes' time I was able to find these recent stories:

New Dangerous Trend Hits The Villages Sexting while walking [/B]
Last Wednesday, ******* *****, 87, a sexy, cougar resident of the ridiculously expensive condo neighborhood adjacent to Spanish Springs, was taking her morning walk while talking on her cell phone.She subsequently started sexting photos of her brand new cosmetic breast enhancements to Gary Gigolo, a 32-year-old-man with whom she had danced at Katy Belles. And now Mrs. Robinson may wind up at the same North Carolina prison where Bernie Madoff resides.
Note by me: This was not Mr. Midnight it was a cop).
Just trying to help out Penn with his statistics here. Not saying that there are bunches.

EWWWWW!!! Thank you, Skybo, for the clarification.

I was starting to worry myself a little bit...and what an interesting website!