Right, because you can't follow a police officer home from Burger king to where he lives with his family? I guess I just don't buy this whole idea of huge secrecy around where officers of the law/maximum security prison wardens etc live. I don't see it, and I don't believe it, and I don't believe that they, or the average joe, was in any way put in actual harms way by this article, where I found it next to impossible to backtrack from the dot to a person.
If anything, the people put INTENTIONALLY in harms way were the writers of the article and the employees of the newspaper, who had photos of their homes and their names and addresses posted all over by angry gun owners and NRA activists.
I wouldn't call it a HUGE secrecy. But you do take reasonable precautions. Depending on where you police, those precautions would be different. Here, we do what we can to keep DH's name off of public records, he avoids situations where he would be forced to remain in close contact with his kids (re enforcing they are his) and walks away from us in stores if he sees someone he feels has the potential to target us. But yes, he still goes with us to most stores, will attend ballet recitals/soccer games, and really, most of our neighbors and all of our friends know he is a cop. It isnt a huge secret. But I do know some places where police are advised to not live in the area, and to have mail sent to PO boxes etc.
I dont know that I would say publishing this put anyone in harms way, but what was the point. It is one more thing out there pointing at where people who try to keep their addresses quiet live, and for what? But then I dont really get why this needs to be public record anyways, but even if it is, I would like to see the person have to actually request the information, so there would be a record of the request.
Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)
I know in my city there was recently a lot in the local news about this. There was a local debate about if police officers should be able to drive to and from work in the police car. (Taking it home with them and keeping it with them over night) There were some that wanted to offer that if they lived within city limits but not if they lived more that say 15 minutes out. It was decided against that because most PO in this city do not live within the city as to protect their identity.
Excellent point. Parking your police car in your driveway is hardly a "precaution" to protect your family from people knowing where you live.....yet in so many communities it is a commonplace occurance. Is the idea that if you park your cruiser in your driveway or garage 15 minutes away people or criminals may not realize that a police officer lives there? 15 minutes? That is silly.
The argument that they don't live within city limits to protect their identity as a police officer, but wanted to DRIVE A POLICE CAR home to their home AND PARK IT IN THEIR FAMILY DRIVEWAY OVERNIGHT is absolutely inane, to me.
Here nearly all of our officers have vehicles that they park in their driveway or in front of their house. I can think of three of them in my neighborhood. Not so secret, eh?
DD 8.03, DD 6.05, DS 3.07, DD 5.09, and DS arrived 6.17.12
Here only traffic officers ever bring their marked cruisers home. They are dealing with Traffic violators, not drug dealers and murderers. DH works plain clothes and deals with drug dealers and murderers every day. He would NEVER park a marked car in our driveway, even for a quick lunch. He has occasionally parked one in the alley if he has to run in for something, but thats about it. However, he does frequently bring an UNMARKED car home and park it in our driveway if he is working on something serious and doesnt have a ton of time between shifts. We only have one car and he bikes to work, but brings an unmarked car home if he only has a few hours to sleep or whatever.
Again, not every area is the same, and not every policing job is the same. Parking your cruiser in your driveway is one end of the spectrum. I have a friend who's father actually lived in a seperate town than them for 2 years while investigating a bombing because his family was at risk. That is the other end of the spectrum.
Mom to Arianna (5), Conner (3) and Trent (my baby)
I hope every person who is burglarized that is on this list sues the newspaper.
Burglars Hit Home of Gun Owner ID’d by Newspaper | FOX News & Commentary: Todd StarnesThe home of a gun owner, whose address was published by a New York newspaper, has been burglarized and a state lawmaker said it appears the burglars may have used the newspaper’s map to target the residence.
“Luckily the gun was locked up and no one was hurt,” Sen. Greg Ball said.
The residence in White Plains, was identified in an interactive map that identified the names and addresses individuals who have gun permits. It was published by The Journal News — a Gannett Co. newspaper.
The elderly homeowner, who legally owns weapons, was not at home at the time of the burglary.
“The police are doing a full investigation,” the unidentified man told NewsDay. Police said it appears the burglars targeted the homeowner’s gun safe.
The newspaper has come under intense national exposure after they published a list of residents who have gun permits.
Among the most vocal local opponents is Sen. Ball — who said the newspaper had put law-abiding citizens in danger.
“The Journal News has placed the lives of these folks at risk by creating a virtual shopping list for criminals and nut jobs,” said Ball. “If the connection is proven, this is further proof that these maps are not only an invasion of privacy but that they present a clear and present danger to law-abiding, private citizens.”
Ball is introducing legislation Monday to protect the names of New Yorkers who have legally obtained gun permits.
“Former convicts have already testified to the usefulness of the asinine Journal News ‘gun maps’ yet the reckless editors are evidently willing to roll the dice, gambling with the lives of innocent local homeowners,” Ball said.
The Affiliated Police Association of Westchester County said they plan to hold the newspaper accountable for any attacks on their residences of their 25,000 members.
Ball said the newspaper, whose parent company owns USA Today, is coddling terrorists.
“The same elitist eggheads who use their editorial page to coddle terrorists and criminals are now treating law abiding citizens like level three sexual predators,” he said. “This is not about the Second Amendment; these bills are simply about commonsense and personal privacy. Publishing this information on a website, as we have evidently just witnessed in the recent attempted gun burglary, provides criminals with a map of where they can steal firearms from lawful owners for later use in the commission of crimes.”
Mom to Lee, Jake, Brandon, Rocco
Stepmom to Ryan, Regan, Braden, Baley
Granddaughters Kylie 10/18/2010 & Aleya 4/22/2013
I never consider a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosopy, as a cause for withdrawing from a friend. --Thomas Jefferson
Hey, good luck to them with their lawsuit! As your story about your ex husband the police officer who successfully had weapons stolen from his residence (in texas, where you said gun permits are not even public record like they are in NY), a criminal does not need public notice of where guns are kept in order to successfully steal weapons, even from cops. I hope that if any violence happens to the employees of the newspaper (who had their addresses and photos of their home plastered all over the internet by angry gun owners) they are also able to file suit against those organizations who incited violence against them.
I find it hard for them to be able to sue them since this is public record.
I think it is awful that they are targeted and I do agree this probably made it easier to target but they could have still done this with any registration.
A newspaper has removed an interactive online map of handgun permit holders in two New York counties that drew nationwide anger and prompted threats against its staff, the publisher said Friday.
The decision by the paper, The Journal News, to take the information off its Web site came in response to the passage of sweeping gun legislation in Albany this week, the publisher, Janet Hasson, said in a statement. “While the new law does not require us to remove the data, we believe that doing so complies with its spirit,” she said. Legislators pushed to add the measure to the new law in response to the paper’s publication after an outcry from gun-rights advocates and some law enforcement groups.
“From the beginning it was irresponsible conduct from The Journal News,” said Roy T. Richter, the head of the Captains Endowment Association, which represents the upper echelons of the New York Police Department. He said thousands of retired officers live in the two counties — Westchester and Rockland, just north of the city — and some objected to seeing their personal information published on the newspaper’s Web site.
“The problem is,” he said, “once you put things on the Internet, they’re stuck out there.”
The newspaper, which is based in White Plains, used public records to create the map, a clickable collection of the names and addresses of thousands of permit holders in the two counties. Since it first appeared in late December, the online map had been viewed nearly 1.2 million times, the paper said.
The paper received a flood of angry phone calls and letters, and opponents posted the home address of editors and other staff members online. The reaction prompted the paper to hire armed security for its headquarters and for a bureau in Rockland.
The new gun law, which Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo signed on Tuesday, includes a provision prohibiting the release of information on gun permit holders for 120 days, and it also allows those with permits already in the statewide database to request the removal of their names and addresses.
State Senator Greg Ball, a Putnam County Republican and a sponsor of the provision, applauded the map’s removal. “I am proud to have passed legislation keeping The Journal News from doing this ever again,” he said.
In a note to readers published on Friday, Ms. Hasson said the decision to remove the interactive map, which was posted in response to the mass shooting at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., was neither a concession to critics nor a response to threats. “We know our business is a controversial one, and we do not cower,” she said.
She said the paper would continue to pursue its request for permit records from Putnam County. Local officials have so far declined to release them.
Ms. Hasson said a snapshot of the map — with its dots visible but personal information absent — would also remain on the site, “to remind the community that guns are a fact of life we should never forget.”