urbanSTL

JMedwick wrote:

Also, the homeless and Lucifer Rice's New Life Evangelical Church have been talked about in detail here: http://urbanstl.com/viewtopic.php?t=1821. The building needs to be condemned; it looks blighted.



I would really like to see an expose on Rice's practices. Others could comment more, but he seems more interested in increasing his homeless kingdom than transitioning folks to society.

I would second this idea. It is a great jumping off point considering the second part of your current story.

I would whole heartedly endose this too. It is time we got the city back from the hoodlums.



On the risk of sounding a little cold, I demand action on the taxes I pay to clear out Lucas park. I would like to take some of those taxes and find a solution to the homelessnesses away from Rice. He is not a solution, but a part of the problem.



U listening Steve?

Lucifer Rice. I like it. Good one, innov8ion!

bsharmastl wrote:On the risk of sounding a little cold, I demand action on the taxes I pay to clear out Lucas park. I would like to take some of those taxes and find a solution to the homelessnesses away from Rice. He is not a solution, but a part of the problem.

If you're being cold, well, that makes two of us. I don't know what can be done realistically, but I find the city's tolerance of the situation at Lucas Park to be absolutely unacceptable. I know the city is between a rock and a hard place on this one, but the status quo certainly isn't the answer. And I know some people are worried about downtown's image taking a hit just when things are looking up, but I think it's good to bring this situation to the forefront of public discussion.

The problem is that there's such a disconnect between 'the city' and the burbs that it's too easy for more than a million people to just avoid downtown and figure it's someone else's problem. I don't think this report will spur action from someone in Chesterfield. I guess that means it our problem (those of us who live in the city or go downtown for anything other than a Cards game.

I happened to see the spot from the other night about downtown car cloutings and thefts. I appreciate your efforts to point out how some garages could have better lighting, etc., but you are kidding yourself if you think that stories like that are a form of public service.



Stories on crime are cheap (in every sense of the word) pandering to the lowest popular instincts. It's the porn of network TV.



You always give the viewers lots of deliciously scary stories, but where's the context? How much crime is there really? How do the levels of crime today compare to St. Louis and comparable cities 10, 20, 30 years ago? What are the actual odds that YOU will be a victim of crime in the next year vs. the likelihood of being in a car accident or some similar misfortune? How do the odds of getting murdered compare to the odds of getting hit by a car while riding your bike, drowning in a pool, or getting food poisoning from the supermarket?



I grew up in the '70's in a relatively affluent suburb of Chicago where crime was a huge problem - in school, at the el, on the bus. I haven't checked the stats, but I would not be surprised to find that the crime rate in my 'burb at that time was comparable to the rate in St. Louis today. But there wasn't this constant obsessing, scare-mongering, hand-wringing. One took reasonable precautions and you went on with your life.



If TV news wants to engage in public service (and I wonder sometimes), then you'll find a new topic -- something "newsworthy."

phobia wrote:

publiceye wrote:PS The circuit attorney's website lets its readers track cases through the courts. How many people hand-wringing about this kind of story took the time to figure out which circuit judges up for retention on Tuesday's ballot routinely let car clouters walk out of court?

This is a great question. Is there anyone who provides analysis of judges beyond the bar association ratings I (and, I'm sure, about 5 other people) use to vote?

I used em too. tried to find a lot about the judges but instead found only these.



And to myself I said "Lawyers rating judges, and I'm believing them."

Having spent pretty much every day of my life on Wash Ave (between Tucker and 14th) from 1990-98, this report comes as no surprise. "Smash and grab" activity has been going on for close to two decades around the Lucas Park area. What has changed is the type of folks who are coming to Wash Ave. 15 years ago, the nightlife consisted of 1227 and Twist, two clubs patronized by what I would typify as urbanites.... people who know "how to live" in a city environment. In other words "leave nothing in the car within sight". The woman who had her purse stolen was just asking for it. Suburban mentality in an urban environment is likely the biggest issue with regard to the massive increase over the last four years. Can't blame the perps for figuring out where the easy hits are...

Completely asinine. We can blame the perps because they broke the f-ckin law and broke into / stole someone's car. Granted, people should be more careful but that doesn't excuse anyone breaking the law.



The previous poster's line of thinking reminds me of people who say that women who wear short skirts are just asking to be raped... Ugh!!!

marc buxton wrote:Having spent pretty much every day of my life on Wash Ave (between Tucker and 14th) from 1990-98, this report comes as no surprise. "Smash and grab" activity has been going on for close to two decades around the Lucas Park area. What has changed is the type of folks who are coming to Wash Ave. 15 years ago, the nightlife consisted of 1227 and Twist, two clubs patronized by what I would typify as urbanites.... people who know "how to live" in a city environment. In other words "leave nothing in the car within sight". The woman who had her purse stolen was just asking for it. Suburban mentality in an urban environment is likely the biggest issue with regard to the massive increase over the last four years. Can't blame the perps for figuring out where the easy hits are...

Having spent pretty much every day of my life on Wash Ave (between Tucker and 14th) from 1990-98, this report comes as no surprise. "Smash and grab" activity has been going on for close to two decades around the Lucas Park area. What has changed is the type of folks who are coming to Wash Ave. 15 years ago, the nightlife consisted of 1227 and Twist, two clubs patronized by what I would typify as urbanites.... people who know "how to live" in a city environment. In other words "leave nothing in the car within sight". The woman who had her purse stolen was just asking for it. Suburban mentality in an urban environment is likely the biggest issue with regard to the massive increase over the last four years. Can't blame the perps for figuring out where the easy hits are...

I agree - use common sense and at least help yourself out.

I'm not condoning illegal activity...just my take on why the escalation is occuring. Nightlife patrons on Wash Ave simply are not as street smart as the used to be. Leaving items of value inside the passenger compartment is just plain stupid. Short skirts are only stupid when worn by overweight women (or Scottish Men).

innov8ion wrote:Completely asinine. We can blame the perps because they broke the f-ckin law and broke into / stole someone's car. Granted, people should be more careful but that doesn't excuse anyone breaking the law.



The previous poster's line of thinking reminds me of people who say that women who wear short skirts are just asking to be raped... Ugh!!!

marc buxton wrote:Having spent pretty much every day of my life on Wash Ave (between Tucker and 14th) from 1990-98, this report comes as no surprise. "Smash and grab" activity has been going on for close to two decades around the Lucas Park area. What has changed is the type of folks who are coming to Wash Ave. 15 years ago, the nightlife consisted of 1227 and Twist, two clubs patronized by what I would typify as urbanites.... people who know "how to live" in a city environment. In other words "leave nothing in the car within sight". The woman who had her purse stolen was just asking for it. Suburban mentality in an urban environment is likely the biggest issue with regard to the massive increase over the last four years. Can't blame the perps for figuring out where the easy hits are...

marc buxton wrote:Having spent pretty much every day of my life on Wash Ave (between Tucker and 14th) from 1990-98, this report comes as no surprise. "Smash and grab" activity has been going on for close to two decades around the Lucas Park area. What has changed is the type of folks who are coming to Wash Ave. 15 years ago, the nightlife consisted of 1227 and Twist, two clubs patronized by what I would typify as urbanites.... people who know "how to live" in a city environment. In other words "leave nothing in the car within sight". The woman who had her purse stolen was just asking for it. Suburban mentality in an urban environment is likely the biggest issue with regard to the massive increase over the last four years. Can't blame the perps for figuring out where the easy hits are...

This is basically what a St. Louis police officer told us at our neighborhood meeting. She said that before the meeting she drove around the neighborhood and saw loose change and a jacket left in cars and that we were just asking for it. Pissed me off. Yeah, we could be more careful, but she said nothing about actually cracking down on the perps or increased patrols in response to a very noticable increase in these types of nuisance crimes.

I can understand everyone's frustration, but in terms of car break-ins, preventive measures are the best way to stop these crimes. Smash-and-grabs are nearly impossible to solve unless a copper happens to be in the right place at the right time. Unless we had an officer standing guard on every single block, I'm not sure how we could cut back on this crime without people not leaving things in their cars.



There's an additional bonus to removing any and all belongings from your car--it looks better!

I agree with people being more careful with what is visible in their car, but it still does NOT excuse the police or the Administration from doing the job of cracking down on the actual crime, or enforcing existing laws. There should be a balance of responsibility between a citizen(who may witness a crime), a car owner and that of law enforcement officers. Just having "one" of these entities take all the blame or responsibility will not help.

The unfortunate fact of the matter is more officers and more patrols means more money which means higher taxes.



I am friends with some veterns on the city police force. Nothing is more frustrating to them than arresting some one over and over and over again. Which keeps happening because they are arrested and then let back out on the streets, not by the police, but by the judges.

buckethead wrote:The unfortunate fact of the matter is more officers and more patrols means more money which means higher taxes.



I am friends with some veterns on the city police force. Nothing is more frustrating to them than arresting some one over and over and over again. Which keeps happening because they are arrested and then let back out on the streets, not by the police, but by the judges.

Very good point. Which threads into a message on some post (which I will try to find) which showed rankings of City judges, done by the bar association.



There is no excuse for a judge to let a repeat offender back on the street.

bsharmastl wrote:

buckethead wrote:The unfortunate fact of the matter is more officers and more patrols means more money which means higher taxes.



I am friends with some veterns on the city police force. Nothing is more frustrating to them than arresting some one over and over and over again. Which keeps happening because they are arrested and then let back out on the streets, not by the police, but by the judges.

Very good point. Which threads into a message on some post (which I will try to find) which showed rankings of City judges, done by the bar association.



There is no excuse for a judge to let a repeat offender back on the street.

Even if that repeat offender is arrested, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the crime, by lazy police officers simply because he or she IS a repeat offender?

If you are talking about due process, can you document a case where a police officer arrested a homeless guy for no reason AFTER the incident in which they tried to "clean" the city of homeless people and got sued (and lost)?



There are several cases of police officers arresting people for loitering, etc. (keeping existing laws) and those people being let off for whatever reasons (jails being too full is quoted as one of them).



I have no issues in the city trying to help the homeless (which they do to some degree). I have a STRONG issue with "anyone" breaking the law and getting away with it either because they are homeless or "too rich". A law breaker should be dealt with equally.

jlblues wrote:

bsharmastl wrote:

buckethead wrote:The unfortunate fact of the matter is more officers and more patrols means more money which means higher taxes.



I am friends with some veterns on the city police force. Nothing is more frustrating to them than arresting some one over and over and over again. Which keeps happening because they are arrested and then let back out on the streets, not by the police, but by the judges.

Very good point. Which threads into a message on some post (which I will try to find) which showed rankings of City judges, done by the bar association.



There is no excuse for a judge to let a repeat offender back on the street.

Even if that repeat offender is arrested, regardless of whether they had anything to do with the crime, by lazy police officers simply because he or she IS a repeat offender?

Do you have any examples of someone getting arrested just because they are a repeat offender?



I don't think they are talking about repeat loitering offenses...



From mayorslay.com-



"One of the department’s most important anti-crime efforts is the Anti-Crime Task Force, a group of well-equipped, well-trained officers who give high crime areas their particular attention. Reading a memo about the task force’s work on a recent evening, I was struck by the fact that none of the people caught by the police during the commission of a crime was a stranger to the officers: all of them had long and recent records. In fact, the six people arrested that night had combined rap sheets of 30 prior arrests for various felonies and serious misdemeanors. The oldest arrested person was only 26."



and



"Here are some phrases from a recent police report that caught my eye:



. . .an extensive criminal history which includes 55 felony convictions and 20 misdemeanor arrests with 4 convictions.



. . . found to have a capias warrant for Probation Violation and 2 fugitive wanteds from St. Louis County for Stealing of a Motor Vehicle and Tampering 2nd. During the St. Louis County incidents, [he] stole their Bait Car and also was a passenger in the stolen car. [He] has been arrested by the Task Force on two separate occasions for Tampering 1st. He is currently on Probation for one of those cases.



And, in a report detailing the arrests and noting the prior criminal records of a different duo of suspects:



Dates of Birth: 11-16-89 and 10-27-90"

To me, a repeat offender is someone who has been convicted in a court of law, and is arrested again for a violation.

Go the the stlcitycircuitcourt.com and look for John Doe, and you will find several cases of people arrested over repeat convictions (not necessarily for the same type of crime) and let out on probation.



To the point I was trying to make, anyone who breaks the law "several" times should be dealt with, and not let off on each occasion. May he/she be poor, or rich.

I am in strong support of Bastiat's idea pictured above.

buckethead wrote:Do you have any examples of someone getting arrested just because they are a repeat offender?

I wasn't speaking specifically of loitering offenses, I am sure very few of those ever lead to a conviction. But, sure, it happens nearly every day. Where do you think the phrase "round up the usual suspects" comes from? (No, not the movie...) County and city police officers routinely arrest people with the only evidence of guilt being that the officer recognizes them, and they were in the general vicinity of a crime. They then "tailor" their report to justify the arrest. If the defendant has a rap sheet, they can't testify in their own defense without that coming out in trial, so they generally take a plea bargain because they don't want to risk getting a much longer sentence. Unfortunately, a majority of those between the ages of 18 and 30 in certain parts of the city and county DO have a rap sheet. Public defenders and prosecutors alike negotiate light sentences because they know the defendant probably isn't good for the crime, but neither want to take it to trial. So, the long and short, who knows how many of those convictions are legitimate?



Many city residents know that this is standard practice by the police force and the courts, so what do you think is going through their minds when they DO serve on a jury?

the car clouting is a bit of a sore subject for me. my gf has been parking on St. Charles by Lucas Park for over 6 months without a problem. Then, one night she doesn't think and leaves some donuts in the back seat. Smash and grab later and somebody got a sugar fix and a black nightie (don't ask ). We were upset, but actually had a good laugh at our misfortune and thought we learned our lesson.



Two weeks later, the first time she parked by my house after the incident, we made sure that there was nothing at all in view in the car. Lo and behold, we came out in the morn to find that someone had smashed in her window with a brick, broken her center console and tried (in vain) to extract her stereo.



Moral of the story: being 'street smart' may make you less likely to be a victim, but is no sort of guarantee or excuse.



Don't even get us started on the fact that she had received 4 bogus parking tickets on that street (later thrown out in court) between midnight and 4am in the two weeks prior. I hope that the police would have more important things to do at that time (like keeping an eye out for all the clouters) than write bogus parking tickets.