urbanSTL

MarkHaversham wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:It's natural progression. I can get away with this, what can I get away with next. In addition, you combine multiple minor infractions that comes together simultaneously on the weekends and you get chaos.

That's exactly the formulation of the theory I find least convincing: that misdemeanors are the gateway drug to mass murder.

Having said that, we should still police minor infractions for their own sake. But I don't think that 10 citations for broken taillights = 1 prevented shooting.

The broken windows theory doesn't hold true in the sense that "small crimes lead to bigger ones." But it certainly seems to hold true that, if X crimes are going to be committed, they're more likely going to be committed in a place that has a history of non-enforcement.

Simple example: Metrolink. I witness more petty (and real) crime on Metrolink than I do anywhere else, per given unit of time.

Now, a loaded Metro train has the 'advantage' to a criminal of holding a captive audience. But while enforcement across Metro is low in general, absolutely the most crime occurs between Civic Center and Forest Park, between which there is never - EVER - enforcement of petty violations (lack of ticket, eating, loud music, etc.).

So even if you assume that crime is only displaced, never eliminated, enforcement at least displaces it.

bprop wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:

downtown2007 wrote:It's natural progression. I can get away with this, what can I get away with next. In addition, you combine multiple minor infractions that comes together simultaneously on the weekends and you get chaos.

That's exactly the formulation of the theory I find least convincing: that misdemeanors are the gateway drug to mass murder.

Having said that, we should still police minor infractions for their own sake. But I don't think that 10 citations for broken taillights = 1 prevented shooting.

The broken windows theory doesn't hold true in the sense that "small crimes lead to bigger ones." But it certainly seems to hold true that, if X crimes are going to be committed, they're more likely going to be committed in a place that has a history of non-enforcement.

Isn't that a somewhat different theory? The broken window theory is that non-enforcement of Minor Crime leads to incidents of Major Crime. What what you're asserting is that in a zone where no crime at all is punished, those crimes happen more often. This can be true without hypothesizing any relationship between Minor and Major Crime. Pickpockets pickpocket where they can, and shooters shoot where they can, but that doesn't follow that pickpockets become shooters, or that enforcing pickpocketing would reduce shooting, or that enforcement against shooting would reduce pickpocketing.

Increasing police presence in general can cover all the bases, so that might not seem like a meaningful distinction. But broken window theorizing can lead to ideas like "if police officers just scream at kids more for making loud noises, we can solve drug crime", and that just increases fascism without decreasing serious crime. That's why I think it's important to be cognizant of the dangers in thinking murders happen because kids listen to music in public.

I recall the City closing off Washington Ave. to traffic. Could this be an option to limit Sunday night cruising? If not, I guess the PD needs to up the ante with patrols and 'harrassment'. This will deter the criminal element to an extent.

I am very concerned about what I saw at 'Sauce on the Side' surveillance video. The thugs were shooting at a robbery victim, that would not give up his goods. First off, I know it was 2 AM, but if you have multiple 24-7 street patrols, this would be somewhat of a deterrent. 24-7 foot patrols in the residential areas might seem like a waste to some, but at least Thur-Sun. that would give residents piece of mind. Something has to be done, to deter thugs from running amuck Downtown!

Closing off traffic seems like cutting off ones nose to spite your face, but more patrols would be good for responding to people who break the law.

That's a misinformed article.
Question is....what does the majority of the homeless population do with the money raised from panhandling?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

dweebe wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:Closing off traffic seems like cutting off ones nose to spite your face, but more patrols would be good for responding to people who break the law.

Even if it's just when the cruising is getting out of control?

I guess that depends what you mean by "out of control cruising", that somehow is out of control yet perfectly legal such that police can do nothing but passive-aggressively shut down roads.

I don't like the fact that some people equate enforcing laws that are on the books as a "crackdown". It wouldn't be viewed as a crackdown if the cops were enforcing current laws on the books all the time.

I get the sense that many people want to pick and choose which laws are followed and which they want to ignore.

I totally agree that there is a sense of lawlessness downtown at certain times in certain areas, so yeah, I think not enforcing quality of life laws does lead embolden those up to no good since they don't think they can get caught.

It's beyond comprehension that these quality of life issues aren't being enforced by the SLMPD currently. Ugh, this City.

olvidarte wrote:I don't like the fact that some people equate enforcing laws that are on the books as a "crackdown". It wouldn't be viewed as a crackdown if the cops were enforcing current laws on the books all the time.

Well, some laws are really stupid. For example, sodomy laws are on the books in some places. Minors can be charged for possessing empty beer bottles. There are innumerable laws across the country that essentially make it illegal to be poor or young or black, or were originally written for such purposes. These are laws that exist not for the purpose of punishing wrongdoing, but to punish people for being the "wrong" kind of people.

The line between someone being a disruptive nuisance (getting drunk and yelling at passersby on the sidewalk), and someone who offends the public by their existence (a quiet homeless man having a beer in an alley) is fuzzy and debatable.

I think your statement elevates "current laws" to a status above criticism, which is undeserved.

Control cruising and you eliminate 50% of Wash Ave's problems. Maybe more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

downtown2007 wrote:Control cruising and you eliminate 50% of Wash Ave's problems. Maybe more.

Agree 100%. If someone says cruising is acceptable then please send me your address and ill get 20 of my friends to drive in circles around your block for 5 hours on Sunday night, blaring my radio, reving engines, squeeling tires, and well see how you feel then

dweebe wrote: So the cruisers and rice rocket jerks can do whatever they want?

Why can't the police cite them or arrest them for breaking the law?

They can but don't.

It's really hard to catch the motorcycles. They speed off and most don't have plates.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ substantial speed bumps all up and down Washington should take care of both the cruising and the bikes.

^ I believe those are still illegal in the city. And street dept doesn't like them on snow routes

Temporary speed bumps?

Cruising use to take place along the riverfront. Wonder if it will return after Wharf street reopens next week? The amount of trash that was left behind come Sunday mornings was an embarrassment.

southcitygent wrote:Cruising use to take place along the riverfront. Wonder if it will return after Wharf street reopens next week? The amount of trash that was left behind come Sunday mornings was an embarrassment.

And after the riverfront was closed cruising really took over Wash Ave. They were displaced.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Planned Parenthood needs to step up and do their job. I'd even consider crowdfunded abortion to offset the government incentives to have an unwanted child. Abortion is here to stay. Let's utilize the technology. We can even do it in third term with no harm to mothers. Just because some guy shot some sperm on an ovary is not a great idea for another carbon producing liability to be around.

Good god, Chicago had 66 murders in May!

Yeah i heard they were headed towards 300 already. On my way to Detroit i ended up a little lost in Chicago's South side to avoid paying a toll i stopped at a walgreens then ended up getting gas as well I'm guessing those areas were Harvey and South Holland then on my back i drove through Chicago Heights. What was our may tally?