^ Apparently it was a random shooting from a vehicle.... it was located on the corner. Or maybe they didn't like Toyota's or hybrids.
- 1,299
^ Not much the cops can do about that.
Nor can they prevent nut jobs from shooting people in movie theaters for sending text messages.
Next issue...
Nor can they prevent nut jobs from shooting people in movie theaters for sending text messages.
Next issue...
- 151
I am happy crime is down over all and in some cases 50 year lows but we have to remember that having zero crime is impossible there are just bad and or crazy people out there. If we could get homicides down to about 40 a year that would be be great (most of our homicides are criminals killing criminals.)
Would anyone be open to pay a penny higher sales tax so the city could hire more cops?
Would anyone be open to pay a penny higher sales tax so the city could hire more cops?
I'm going to have to disagree with you on combining the city and county crime statistics, and here's why. Sure, it would even the playing field when comparing St. Louis to sprawlvilles like Houston and Kansas City and Phoenix that encompass hundreds of miles of exurban neighborhoods, but it unfairly pads our numbers at the expense of older cities most similar to St. Louis. Why should St. Louis be allowed to include its suburban county in its numbers when cities like Cleveland, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, Philly, Chicago, etc. do not? You see, it's just playing with numbers to look better on paper, and it doesn't make it equal or accurate if all cities can't play by the same rules.jstriebel wrote:The reason this is a big deal and should be touted as a good thing is that a lot of people don't live in the city because they're afraid of the crime.
Well 120 or 113 murders (all of which we agree are sad and bad), their chance of being murdered, especially if they're not involved in drugs or gangs is extremely low. And their chance of having any other serious crime committed against them just. keeps. dropping.
There seems to be this hurdle some people have trouble getting over that, the city can continue to focus on and fight against the things that are still bad, while still promoting the good things (which in turn help spur on the fight against the bad).
It's the same thing with crime reporting. "Don't merge crime stats with STL County, that's just pretending like existing crime isn't there!"
No it's not. It's giving a more honest comparison to other metro areas to help restore the STL reputation. It's not like the police force is going to see the new numbers and stop patrolling neighborhoods.
We can promote the good and still fight the bad. I promise. We're all very capable of doing multiple things.
FACT-- Boston, Pittsburgh and San Francisco all have considerably lower crime rates than St. Louis, and they also have SMALLER land areas than St. Louis City. So if we arbitrarily combined our stats with St. Louis County, we'd look a lot safer than these cities on paper, but it has no basis in reality.
- 8,155
^ I am with you on this. We need to be thinking how we can be more like Boston and other "small land mass" cities that are doing well. Not just on crime, but with other things as well. Our size too often is too much of an excuse. What our high crime and other negative rates tells us is not so much that we comprise a relatively small geographical area of the region but rather that we have significantly more abandonment of our core compared to most of America's large metros. Solve that and everything else falls into place.
Which brings to light the bigger point the the crime stats comparison is typically a load of bunk no matter how you slice it. Each metro has a lot of unique factors at play in both their organization as well as the numbers they report. There's no truly accurate scale.
Keep in mind, though, that plenty of St. Louis county isn't sprawl. Some of the near suburbs are pretty urban. Even more are suburban but not exactly sprawl.
Again, there's no perfect system.
But if I could choose between the one that unfairly skews us toward a negative perception, vs. the on that unfairly skews us towards a positive perception, I'm choosing the latter every single time.
It doesn't mean those of us within the city and region should forget about the crime that exists. We obviously shouldn't. It just means we should put on our best face for the rest of the country and the world.
Doing so helps make us a more attractive spot to move to, and more good citizens moving to town in-turn helps solve the original crime issue at play.
Keep in mind, though, that plenty of St. Louis county isn't sprawl. Some of the near suburbs are pretty urban. Even more are suburban but not exactly sprawl.
Again, there's no perfect system.
But if I could choose between the one that unfairly skews us toward a negative perception, vs. the on that unfairly skews us towards a positive perception, I'm choosing the latter every single time.
It doesn't mean those of us within the city and region should forget about the crime that exists. We obviously shouldn't. It just means we should put on our best face for the rest of the country and the world.
Doing so helps make us a more attractive spot to move to, and more good citizens moving to town in-turn helps solve the original crime issue at play.
- 1,299
San Francisco and Boston are both light years ahead of St. Louis in terms of household income and wealth. Those millionaires are not likely to be committing smash and grab robberies, car thefts, and home invasions.
Correct. And we won't be attracting those sorts of folks nearly as easily if we keep reporting numbers that put as at a disadvantage. Neither set of numbers is going to be perfect, but we might as well use the ones that show us in a better light.Northside Neighbor wrote:San Francisco and Boston are both light years ahead of St. Louis in terms of household income and wealth. Those millionaires are not likely to be committing smash and grab robberies, car thefts, and home invasions.
Again, doing so in no way means we stop focusing on the crime that is here.
- 1,299
Scott Ogilvie just posted a message about crime in the city, particularly the 24th ward, but also about some other of the city's westerly/southwesterly wards.
The information reveals an interesting fact: In those areas, crime is much lower even than the statewide average - right here in St. Louis city, no less. Imagine that. Hard to believe, right? But that's what it is.
So what we have is really a "Tale of Two Cities": one with serious crime problems, the other more resembling Mayberry....or Lee's Summit, Missouri (or...fill-in-the-blank with your favorite, safe little Missouri burg...).
The irony of course being that regardless of the crime stats at the block, neighborhood, or ward level, the whole city gets perceived as a sort of Devil's Island...
The information reveals an interesting fact: In those areas, crime is much lower even than the statewide average - right here in St. Louis city, no less. Imagine that. Hard to believe, right? But that's what it is.
So what we have is really a "Tale of Two Cities": one with serious crime problems, the other more resembling Mayberry....or Lee's Summit, Missouri (or...fill-in-the-blank with your favorite, safe little Missouri burg...).
The irony of course being that regardless of the crime stats at the block, neighborhood, or ward level, the whole city gets perceived as a sort of Devil's Island...
From the second of those "two cities" (the St. Louis with serious crime problems...)...
Bill McClellan writes about murders in College Hill and "Hot Spot Policing" (with quotes from Alderman Antonio French):
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... d1ea9.html
Bill McClellan writes about murders in College Hill and "Hot Spot Policing" (with quotes from Alderman Antonio French):
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... d1ea9.html
- 1,218
Thought provoking column from Bill McClellean in the PD:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... d1ea9.html
It centers around the College Hill Neighborhood. Here's a quote from the piece:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/colu ... d1ea9.html
It centers around the College Hill Neighborhood. Here's a quote from the piece:
Later, I spoke with Antonio French, the alderman whose ward includes part of the College Hill neighborhood. He said he had gone to three of the crime scenes. I said I had heard there were witnesses to at least one of the killings. He said he had heard the same thing. I asked why the people wouldn’t come forward.
“They’re afraid. They feel isolated. They know that in St. Louis, many people get away with murder. In the end, they will still be living next door to these people. It’s not as simple as ‘Not Snitching,’ ” he said.
No, it’s not simple at all. Nor is this notion of hotspot policing. Maybe it really will be the next big thing, or maybe it just sounds good in theory. That will ultimately be decided by the people in the high-crime neighborhoods. One such vote has already been cast. By not speaking, the people of College Hill have spoken.
- 488
Northside Neighbor wrote:Scott Ogilvie just posted a message about crime in the city, particularly the 24th ward, but also about some other of the city's westerly/southwesterly wards.
The information reveals an interesting fact: In those areas, crime is much lower even than the statewide average - right here in St. Louis city, no less. Imagine that. Hard to believe, right? But that's what it is.
So what we have is really a "Tale of Two Cities": one with serious crime problems, the other more resembling Mayberry....or Lee's Summit, Missouri (or...fill-in-the-blank with your favorite, safe little Missouri burg...).
The irony of course being that regardless of the crime stats at the block, neighborhood, or ward level, the whole city gets perceived as a sort of Devil's Island...
Where is this post? Link?
- 8,155
I know it is sometimes hard to forget, but things were bleak in major metros across the nation into the 90's. Boston had over 150 homicides in 1990 with a population of about 550K. We had 178 with a population just under 400,000. Granted Boston's post-war decline was not as steep as ours, but both were losing population and seen as troubled. But one has had a significant turnaround in both crime and general well-being since then while one has not. To say that we can't learn anything from these other cities b/c they have more millionaires is just so depressing and wrong.Northside Neighbor wrote:San Francisco and Boston are both light years ahead of St. Louis in terms of household income and wealth. Those millionaires are not likely to be committing smash and grab robberies, car thefts, and home invasions.
- 1,642
Stop and Frisk has saved THOUSANDS of young black men's lives and saved many young black men from receiving life in prison murder sentences in New York.
If you are AGAINST Stop and Frisk (a proven and effective tool) then that means you prefer dead young black men and young black men in prison for life as an alternative.
Discuss.
If you are AGAINST Stop and Frisk (a proven and effective tool) then that means you prefer dead young black men and young black men in prison for life as an alternative.
Discuss.
- 8,155
nextstl also has a series of twiiter posts that show very interesting data.mjbais1489 wrote:Northside Neighbor wrote:Scott Ogilvie just posted a message about crime in the city, particularly the 24th ward, but also about some other of the city's westerly/southwesterly wards.
The information reveals an interesting fact: In those areas, crime is much lower even than the statewide average - right here in St. Louis city, no less. Imagine that. Hard to believe, right? But that's what it is.
So what we have is really a "Tale of Two Cities": one with serious crime problems, the other more resembling Mayberry....or Lee's Summit, Missouri (or...fill-in-the-blank with your favorite, safe little Missouri burg...).
The irony of course being that regardless of the crime stats at the block, neighborhood, or ward level, the whole city gets perceived as a sort of Devil's Island...
Where is this post? Link?
https://twitter.com/nextstl
Essentially about 1/3 of the population saw no homicides in their nabes, 1/3 are in nabes with a rate over 100/100K and the other I guess in between.
Ironically, today Bill McClellan has written commentary about hotspot policing in College Hill - not working. In my opinion, certain neighborhoods in St. Louis City are not meant for "hot spot" policing. Some neighborhoods need longer-term intervention.
I mentioned a few pages back (or so) that the SLPD needs to consider setting up temporary "hotspot" SLPD trailers to address certain neighborhoods' crime problems - like College Hill - longer than "hot spot" intervention, yet not permanently.
Although most citizens living in College Hill are law-abiding, it is a sparse dungeon of crime infestation and drugs - a lot of it trafficked from other parts of the region.
"Hotspotting" short term, in my opinion, will not work there. The creeps from all over the region will only come back after a short-term intervention is over because crime in College Hill is more profound and entrenched. College Hill is one of the city's most neglected neighborhoods on every level. I would even be in favor of a temporary no-quota "stop and frisk" policy in these neighborhoods coupled with the temp trailers. The criminals are bound to go elsewhere.
And here's a story about a justifiable homicide that occurred in College Hill. The victim/killer was there to buy drugs and was being robbed when he shot the assailant.
Hopefully, this justifiable homicide won't count in St. Louis' 2014 homicide numbers.
I mentioned a few pages back (or so) that the SLPD needs to consider setting up temporary "hotspot" SLPD trailers to address certain neighborhoods' crime problems - like College Hill - longer than "hot spot" intervention, yet not permanently.
Although most citizens living in College Hill are law-abiding, it is a sparse dungeon of crime infestation and drugs - a lot of it trafficked from other parts of the region.
"Hotspotting" short term, in my opinion, will not work there. The creeps from all over the region will only come back after a short-term intervention is over because crime in College Hill is more profound and entrenched. College Hill is one of the city's most neglected neighborhoods on every level. I would even be in favor of a temporary no-quota "stop and frisk" policy in these neighborhoods coupled with the temp trailers. The criminals are bound to go elsewhere.
And here's a story about a justifiable homicide that occurred in College Hill. The victim/killer was there to buy drugs and was being robbed when he shot the assailant.
Hopefully, this justifiable homicide won't count in St. Louis' 2014 homicide numbers.
What's your supporting argument? Also, welcome back from your hiatus!leeharveyawesome wrote:Stop and Frisk has saved THOUSANDS of young black men's lives and saved many young black men from receiving life in prison murder sentences in New York.
If you are AGAINST Stop and Frisk (a proven and effective tool) then that means you prefer dead young black men and young black men in prison for life as an alternative.
Discuss.
- 592
College Hill would benefit from having WashU, UMSL, or SLU renovate a few buildings and build a minicampus for a College of Urban Studies and Design there.
- 1,299
This is such a long thread, it would be like reading the bible to try to get caught up, so apologies if I'm asking questions which have been asked before, but here goes.
"Crime thread". Okay. So it means all things crime related. Let's discuss.
Stats show crime happens in a handful of neighborhoods at a far higher rate than the rest of the city. So, apart from perception issues, how does crime affect you if you live in the majority of city neighborhoods not severely impacted by crime?
On "fixing crime", what should we do? More cameras? More cops on the street? More Hotspot Policing? More cops on horseback? On bikes? More and more cops? MORE COPS, MORE COPS, MORE COPS????
Gut check - the SLMPD is already the biggest chunk of the city budget, and personally, I don't want them getting more. I'd rather them do MORE with LESS! How's that grab ya?
Fighting crime in STL is like fighting terrorism on a world stage. The cops are at a disadvantage. We're dealing with desperate people.
Judges give too much probation, etc.
In Northern Missouri, steal a car, go to jail.
In St. Louis City, steal a car, FIVE TIMES, and get double secret special probation. Whatever.
The best defense against crime is to be a Good Neighbor.
"Crime thread". Okay. So it means all things crime related. Let's discuss.
Stats show crime happens in a handful of neighborhoods at a far higher rate than the rest of the city. So, apart from perception issues, how does crime affect you if you live in the majority of city neighborhoods not severely impacted by crime?
On "fixing crime", what should we do? More cameras? More cops on the street? More Hotspot Policing? More cops on horseback? On bikes? More and more cops? MORE COPS, MORE COPS, MORE COPS????
Gut check - the SLMPD is already the biggest chunk of the city budget, and personally, I don't want them getting more. I'd rather them do MORE with LESS! How's that grab ya?
Fighting crime in STL is like fighting terrorism on a world stage. The cops are at a disadvantage. We're dealing with desperate people.
Judges give too much probation, etc.
In Northern Missouri, steal a car, go to jail.
In St. Louis City, steal a car, FIVE TIMES, and get double secret special probation. Whatever.
The best defense against crime is to be a Good Neighbor.
I agree. When reading about that huge bust that happened in coordination with the FBI and maybe other agencies last year, I was surprised to read that a huge percentage of those arrested were repeat offenders. Not only were they repeat offenders, but they had a massive amount of convictions between them. Yet they were on the streets again to continue doing whatever they did before. Why is it so difficult to keep them locked up or keep them in some controlled program? Funds? I wonder how many of those that were busted are back out again.Northside Neighbor wrote:This is such a long thread, it would be like reading the bible to try to get caught up, so apologies if I'm asking questions which have been asked before, but here goes.
"Crime thread". Okay. So it means all things crime related. Let's discuss.
Stats show crime happens in a handful of neighborhoods at a far higher rate than the rest of the city. So, apart from perception issues, how does crime effect you if you live in the majority of city neighborhoods not severely impacted by crime?
On "fixing crime", what should we do? More cameras? More cops on the street? More Hotspot Policing? More cops on horseback? On bikes? More and more cops? MORE COPS, MORE COPS, MORE COPS????
Gut check - the SLMPD is already the biggest chunk of the city budget, and personally, I don't want them getting more. I'd rather them do MORE with LESS! How's that grab ya?
Fighting crime in STL is like fighting terrorism on a world stage. The cops are at a disadvantage. We're dealing with desperate people.
Judges give too much probation, etc.
In Northern Missouri, steal a car, go to jail.
In St. Louis City, steal a car, FIVE TIMES, and get double secret special probation. Whatever.
The best defense against crime is to be a Good Neighbor.
Some thoughts on what you've posted:
Despite living in a relatively safe neighborhood, crime rates in a few parts of the city still have a negative impact. You never know when that riff raff that really isn't so far away will stray into your neighborhood. It does happen, and that leads to uneasiness even if in your head you know you shouldn't be worried.
Beyond that, it paints a poor picture of the city regardless. The city loses residents and potential residents because the crime numbers suggest it's not safe. Dig deeper and you'll learn what we know, but not everyone does dig deeper. They see high crime in the city, and they're not raising a family here.
On that note, that's why I support combining crime stats with the county. What we're doing now isn't putting us on fair footing with other cities, and it's painting a very negative and inaccurate picture of the city. Maybe combining stats isn't totally fair either, but we might as well paint the best picture we can, right? And as I've said many times, how we report crime has nothing to do with how we act to control and prevent it. We can modify our reporting while still being every bit (and more) motivated to lower the numbers in reality. It's not a cover up, and it's not either/or.
I have no issue with desiring the SLMPD utilize their budget as efficiently as possible, but I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether they're doing a good job with that currently or not. I think we would benefit from more cops (and cameras) and I think we'd also benefit from a modified strategy (they seem to be working on this). I (again) don't think it's one or the other.
I'm also, generally, with you on the sentences. I'm a huge believer in second chances, but it's time to get serious. And with as many repeat offenders as we're seeing, second chances with gun crime and such in the city don't seem to be working. I'm not sure I like the morality of "stop and frisk" but I do wonder if it's time to try it. And I think we need to be much stricter on illegal gun crimes when they happen.
I also agree that being a good neighbor is a big part, but it's too simplistic to say that would solve our issues.
Despite living in a relatively safe neighborhood, crime rates in a few parts of the city still have a negative impact. You never know when that riff raff that really isn't so far away will stray into your neighborhood. It does happen, and that leads to uneasiness even if in your head you know you shouldn't be worried.
Beyond that, it paints a poor picture of the city regardless. The city loses residents and potential residents because the crime numbers suggest it's not safe. Dig deeper and you'll learn what we know, but not everyone does dig deeper. They see high crime in the city, and they're not raising a family here.
On that note, that's why I support combining crime stats with the county. What we're doing now isn't putting us on fair footing with other cities, and it's painting a very negative and inaccurate picture of the city. Maybe combining stats isn't totally fair either, but we might as well paint the best picture we can, right? And as I've said many times, how we report crime has nothing to do with how we act to control and prevent it. We can modify our reporting while still being every bit (and more) motivated to lower the numbers in reality. It's not a cover up, and it's not either/or.
I have no issue with desiring the SLMPD utilize their budget as efficiently as possible, but I'm not knowledgable enough to say whether they're doing a good job with that currently or not. I think we would benefit from more cops (and cameras) and I think we'd also benefit from a modified strategy (they seem to be working on this). I (again) don't think it's one or the other.
I'm also, generally, with you on the sentences. I'm a huge believer in second chances, but it's time to get serious. And with as many repeat offenders as we're seeing, second chances with gun crime and such in the city don't seem to be working. I'm not sure I like the morality of "stop and frisk" but I do wonder if it's time to try it. And I think we need to be much stricter on illegal gun crimes when they happen.
I also agree that being a good neighbor is a big part, but it's too simplistic to say that would solve our issues.
- 592
I think anyone would rather every government agency do more with less, but why do you oppose more officers?On "fixing crime", what should we do? More cameras? More cops on the street? More Hotspot Policing? More cops on horseback? On bikes? More and more cops? MORE COPS, MORE COPS, MORE COPS????
Gut check - the SLMPD is already the biggest chunk of the city budget, and personally, I don't want them getting more. I'd rather them do MORE with LESS! How's that grab ya?
St. Louis's police officer strength as compared to population is 31.7 per 10,000 (not including sergeants, which makes it about 38.5 per 10,000). This is on the low end of the "ideal range" as found by Guffey (2009) (see https://kucampus.kaplan.edu/documentsto ... _29_43.pdf, p. 32). The article also notes that Levitt (1997) has noted a distortionary affect on more officers; if you have more officers, crime reportings or calls for service go up, so crime appears to go up (p. 33). Marvel and Moody (1996) found that, by using a Granger lag-time test (to account for the time it takes between hiring an officer and when the officer becomes effective):
Chalfin (2012) finds using econometrics that for each $1 spent on policing, the community saves $1.60 in social costs (p. 2). In addition, Chalfin notes St. Louis as one of the top 30 underpoliced of the 242 departments studied, using a formula derived from poverty rate, cost of the officer, income, cost of crime, and a benefit-cost ratio (p. 70 of the pdf document).By using the data from Levitt’s 59 cities, Marvel and Moody determined that for each additional officer at the city level, approximately 24 fewer crimes occur: .02 homicides, .1 rapes, 1.8 robberies, 5.3 burglaries, 12.5 larcenies, and 4.5 auto thefts (p. 632). Marvel and Moody caution that the estimates are averages across the cities and states, and the figures might be higher or lower in individual localities due to, for example, differences in policing practices and differences in other criminal justice features with which the police interact. Like Correa above, Marvel and Moody examined the cost of crime and the number of police officers that would be required in their study. They estimate “that the per-officer savings to victims of UCR index crime are roughly $100,000 per additional officer, which are approximately twice the nationwide costs per officer (Lindgren, 1992, as cited in Marvel & Moody, 1996, p. 633). This figure may be spurious, however, because the crime-reducing effect of adding police requires more than just police expenditures. The effect may be due largely to the deterrent and incapacitative effects of additional arrests and more incarceration. In their conclusion, Marvel and Moody emphasize that greater police staffing at the city level reduces most types of crimes, and the effect is often substantial.
http://emlab.berkeley.edu/~jmccrary/cha ... ry2012.pdf
Property crime is the most difficult crime clearance issue the city faces (see http://www.slmpd.org/images/2012AnnualReport_D.pdf, p. 17-18). Chalfin and several criminologists have noted that police force size has a greater impact on non-personal crimes because of the nature of personal crime (often being motivated by emotional or impulsive rather than financial reasons). Deterrent theory suggests that criminals consciously and unconsciously weigh the risk of the crime and the reward, and they commit when they believe reward outweighs risk; by adding officers, one alters the risk assessment in favor of not committing the crime. By extension, when one reduces staffing, and especially when media report high crime or reductions in staffing, the risk assessment is altered in favor of crime.
So, again, why do you oppose more officers?
FYI-- Crime is the subject of St. Louis On The Air today (Monday, 1/21) on 90.7. It's about to be on right now (12:00 noon). Tune in if you can.
FYI-- Crime is the subject of St. Louis On The Air today (Monday, 1/21) on 90.7. It's about to be on right now (12:00 noon). Tune in if you can.