Can the jurisdiction agreement be expected to prevent violent crime?

by Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus

Taylor Stepp and Kevin Arndt from Undergraduate Student Government recently distributed an email announcing the jurisdiction agreement between The Ohio State University Police Department (OSUPD) and the Columbus Police Department (CPD).

Student and campus safety are rightfully an extremely high priority to University officials, hence the jurisdiction agreement amongst a plethora of other safety procedures that have been created due to the alarming crime rate. Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus (BCCC) considers student safety it’s top priority and credits student safety for being the sole reason for their existence.

The shared passion for campus safety does not necessarily include a shared view of the means of achieving that safety. According to the email from the USG “we all know criminals do not pay attention to borders or jurisdictions”. This is a quote that BCCC has been using since its beginning. One has to ask; if criminals won’t pay attention to borders or jurisdictions, why would criminals pay attention to a sticker, sign, or legislation that bans firearms? Isn’t that what makes a criminal a criminal in the first place? Instead, OSU policy restricts lawful and responsible licensees who choose to defend themselves with a firearm. The jurisdiction agreement is a response to high crime rates on campus and in the university district. Yet, all areas surrounding campus are not gun free zones. Licensees are already carrying on the streets and in the restaurants and bars, and these licensees are not responsible for any of the crimes the agreement is attempting to stop. So why are licensees the ones being legislated against?

The agreement does not allow for OSUPD to patrol off campus unless “they see or believe that a violent crime may take place”. If it were at all possible to predict that a violent crime was about to take place the police would already be preventing the high volume of violent crime already occurring. Three other capabilities the agreement allows for are; asset sharing, OSUPD assistance off campus when requested, and OSUPD can assist the CPD in emergencies. All of which have no impact on preventing crime but rather dealing with it once it has already occurred or is in process of occurring. This agreement is also claiming that if OSUPD saw a crime prior to this, they would not be able to intervene. Certainly that can’t be right. Buckeyes for Concealed Carry on Campus wants to know why; after proving licensees are not a threat, and that this agreement does not prevent crime from occurring, why are licensees still treated as criminals and expected to continue to be defenseless against victimization.

Previous post:

Next post: