Andrew / April 26, 2006 12:43 AM

(Question courtesy of Anthony.)

I don't think it's increasing, necessarily. But it does seem like we're hearing about a lot more than murders lately -- perhaps simply because muggings and sexual assaults and break-ins are getting written about in blogs and such.

mike / April 26, 2006 1:39 AM

Crime in Chicago has actually fallen,(see below) but we read about it more on-line and in blogs because white upper middle class people, those with more resoureces and access to the internet, are gentrifying traditionally poorer neighborhoods, where crime, of course, exists due to a lack of resources.

I will be waiting for a blog by a latina writing about how all the white artists moving in her neighborhood is really freaking her out.

2005 Chicago Crime Summary
Aggravated Assault: 6,680 (-8.4%)
Aggravated Battery: 11,254 (-2.4%)
Arson: 683 (-11.5%)
Burglary: 25,298 (3.1%)
Criminal Sexual Assault: 1,618 (-7.9%)
Motor Vehicle Theft: 22,491 (-1.3%)
Murder: 447 (-0.2%)
Robbery: 15,961 (0.0%)
Theft: 83,235 (-12.1%)

Freddie / April 26, 2006 3:52 AM

I don't know... I live in Kansas City now and they seem thoroughly obsessed with the fact they had 100-some homicides last year

jaye / April 26, 2006 8:27 AM

no.. although i feel a greater sense of security on the streets of new york because chi's streets are so deserted at times, the crime rates definitely seem to be going down or at least holding steady.

the recent shootings in englewood and the media focus on them are only unusual in that two children were senselessly killed days apart but the criminals were always hard at work.

charlie D / April 26, 2006 8:31 AM

Nah.....I think there is more petty crime due to gentrification, the displacement and resentment of peoples always ends up in a bit of a power struggle. Gangs start jockying for turf, and people new to a neiighborhood due to the purchase of a home/condo tend to be more active in their desire to rid crime in their hood. That is a simple cycle that will inevitably take place. That cycle breeds agression?

I also think it has something to do with the Cubs.

Ok tear me apart.........

Thad / April 26, 2006 8:52 AM

I have no hard evidence to back this up, but just from my own walking around and CTA riding, it seems there is more grafitti around the city (well, the North Side at least). Does anyone else notice this? I ask because I'm pretty much sold on the "broken window" theory of crime prevention, as tried in NYC in the '90s (though I could do without the cops playing rough with toilet plungers on suspects).

matty / April 26, 2006 8:54 AM

If you were here in the 80's you would know how rediculous this question is.

matty / April 26, 2006 9:05 AM

That said, violent crime seems to be decreasing in the city but INCREASING in the collar suburbs (save a few like evanston, oak park and la grange).

charlie D / April 26, 2006 9:12 AM

You got it Matty.........I'd be curious to know how this question would play out in thhe collar suburbs. Those guys looked down their noses at Chicago for 30 years, hated the idea of statewide funding for education, never voted for tax breaks to keep jobs in the city etc........hmmm the writing was on the wall 20 years ago and now all those towns are suffering the same fate.

m / April 26, 2006 9:14 AM

The grafitti is the worst I've seen since moving here in 1998. I don't know if it's because there's actually MORE of it or if it's because grafitti blasters isn't as dilligent about cleaning it up. Nearly every building along the northside mainline of the Red Line has been hit.

mike 1:39 a.m.: I happen to know a "latina" who grew up in Logan Square and endured heavy gang violence and badly-aimed bullets flying through the windows of her house in the '80s that nearly killed her father. She doesn't long for the good old days. She lives in the neighborhood again, started a family and is going to start a business.

Matty, I don't know what the point of your post is ... I don't understand the "it used to be worse" attitude, as if we should thank our lucky stars or something. I've seen cops say this at CAPS meetings. I've seen some scary shit in this city, regardless of how much it has changed.

If you don't call 911 at least a couple times a year, you're not paying attention to what's going on outside your window.

Johnny / April 26, 2006 9:33 AM

Are we including political corruption in the definition of 'crime'?

'Cause then I'd say it is up.

mike / April 26, 2006 9:35 AM

"If you don't call 911 at least a couple times a year, you're not paying attention to what's going on outside your window."

This is a ridiculous statement.

VanMoxie / April 26, 2006 9:54 AM

While I agree that most crime exists due to a lack of resources, but that's not purely the case when we're talking about sexual assault. That's a whole other host of societally based issues.

Spook by the door / April 26, 2006 9:58 AM

Ganstas in Corporate America, Ganstas in the White House, Ganstas in the U.S. Congress
Ganstas in City Hall. So is the gangastization of America any surprise? But more to the point of Chicago. Good point about the gang turf wars. As Daley rips down CHA housing, four and five different gang are squeezed into a hoods, like Englewood. Eventually they are relocated to the burbs.......where those displaced are out of sight and out of mind, at least from Daley/his supporters perspective. And of course crime rises in the burbs.

Spook by the door / April 26, 2006 9:59 AM

Ganstas in Corporate America, Ganstas in the White House, Ganstas in the U.S. Congress
Ganstas in City Hall. So is the gangastization of America any surprise? But more to the point of Chicago. Good point about the gang turf wars. As Daley rips down CHA housing, four and five different gang are squeezed into a hoods, like Englewood. Eventually they are relocated to the burbs.......where those displaced are out of sight and out of mind, at least from Daley/his supporters perspective. And of course crime rises in the burbs.

m / April 26, 2006 10:08 AM

Mike, why is it ridiculous?

I’m not trying to start an argument, but I've honestly called 911 at least a handful of times in each of the eight years I've lived here. And it's not like I've lived in 'bad' (a relative term) neighborhoods. And I’m not some paranoid grandma peeking out the blinds at all hours. Bad stuff can happen anywhere.

West Lakeview – gang screaming and then gunfire out in front of my building. Gunfire again in alley of another building.

Lincoln Square – underage gang house kids drinking 40s, smoking blunts and yelling profanities (a few months later, there was gunfire into the back of this building, later a murder outside their garage). Knife robbery and purse snatching in the alley outside another apartment. Gun murder at Damen and Leland. Prostitutes at Western and Lawrence. Thugs getting high and screaming in Welles Park at 2 a.m..

Edgewater - semi-auto gunfire in the alley (two arrested). Guy slapping the hell out of his gf/wife (in front of her child) on a Saturday afternoon in front of a dozen people. Guy passed out drunk on the sidewalk. Various gunfire. Neighbor assaulted by motorist who didn’t want to stop at a stop sign.

Those are just the bad ones.

911 is the only direct link to beat car dispatch. 911 is the only way the crime gets tallied on ICAM. Any cop will tell you to call 911 for ANY crime (no matter how minor) or suspicious activity. 311 is for graffiti and city services like potholes and trees. The crime statistics listed above and on ICAM/chicagocrime are only REPORTED crimes.

mike-ts / April 26, 2006 10:08 AM

Grafitti is a way of pushing to see if the neighborhood will let you get away with pulling crap there - bullying. Letting it go is a way of saying either "we don't care" or "we're too scared to react", either way a green light for the criminal s.o.b.'s to move in and take over.

Grafitti has nothing to do with exercising an artistic bent, it's just bullying. Want to paint a wall? God knows there's tons of beautiful murals in the city, some done in what you can call grafitti style, but it's a totally different thing, and who knows, if you try, you might get someone to donate the space and the paints, maybe pay you for your time if you're extra lucky.

If grafitti and street crime are allowed to once again flourish, the people moving back to the city will once again flee, and you'll have the hellpit you had in the 70's and early 80's. And it's all based on perception. The fact that someone asked this question today tells a lot about where the mood is going.

kelly / April 26, 2006 10:20 AM

don't forget WE'RE the ones responsible for calling the graffiti blasters and telling them where to find it!

call 311, have the address and what type of surface it is, and if it seems gang related, mention that too. call again if it isn't cleaned up after a few days.

Home Value / April 26, 2006 10:24 AM

You know I just dropped 2% for even bringing up this question. Why don't you just keep your mouths shut like they do in NYC?

jen / April 26, 2006 10:34 AM

i think something about spring being in the air has made people itchy...
i feel like i've heard about more people getting mugged/pickpocketed/etc. since it's gotten warmer out.

jt / April 26, 2006 10:36 AM

jaye--you're absolutely right. when i moved here from new york the first thing i noticed was how empty the streets are (mainly, of course, because chicago neighborhoods are more residential). chicago has always felt more dangerous (but probably is not any more dangerous) to me than new york just because of that.

crime gets worse when the weather warms up. so if you're asking if crime has gotten worse in the last month, probably has. but over the last year? i don't think so.

paul / April 26, 2006 10:37 AM

It's absolutely rampant - ever since they made driving while using a cellphone a crime.

I call 911 several times a year in nice safe Evanston. For stuff like gunfire, serious reckless driving and roving bands of guys in ski masks with crobars.

I call the non-emergency number a few times a year too. These are things I see because I walk everwhere, they're not happening outside my window (not all of them anyway).

latina / April 26, 2006 10:40 AM

me poor unedumucated lower klass lateena...me no underztand the crazee white artists - latina not know artists- we no have computers-why you crazee hwite artist come to my hood? oooh, me so freeeeked out.
me live in pilsen - no kulture here- no libaries with computerz, only white people have dem
cant wait to be gentirficated by upper middle white class so they teach us how to behave and bring resources.

p.s. me lub u long time

Dutch101 / April 26, 2006 10:52 AM

I have definitely called 911 a couple of times since I moved to the city four years ago, all when I lived in Wrigleyville and all for drunken fighting and shenanigans, which is to be expected. I don't think that crime is really up in any signifigant way recently. Though I know people who have been mugged or strong-armed, it kind of seems like it was just because they were in gentrifying neighborhoods either going to their, or thier friends new homes. That type of conflict is to be expected, and from what I have heard from long time Chicago residents, crime in lots of parts of the city has really gone down over the past decade or so.
And I do firmly believe in the "broken window" theory of crime. Statistics bear this out, so do your part and hound the grafitti blasters when you need to, as Kelly mentioned.

n / April 26, 2006 10:54 AM

first of all, it's 'graffiti' - two fs and one t.

secondly, the 'broken windows' theory, which is specious at best, has little, if anything, to do with graffiti; new york city has for several years now had the lowest crime rates of any large city in the US (2,800 crimes per 100,000 people) and without a doubt, still the most graffiti. furthermore, take a trip through the most crime-ridden and decaying sections of chicago today and what do you see? virtually NO graffiti anywhere.

debating whether graffiti has 'artistic merit' is a whole other story but the notion that it is 'bullying' or has the power to cause a mass exodus to the suburbs is simply laughable. i have no idea what mike-ts's background is but i can say that having grown up here in the graf-saturated 1980s, no one i knew--whether peers or parents--ever felt threatened or intimidated by graffiti. in fact, hardly anyone ever noticed it. the reality is that for most people growing up in working or middle class sections of the city, graffiti as an issue is a non-starter; we simply have too many other more pressing issues to contend with. gang graffiti may be the exception to this rule but the vast majority of what you see out and about the city is not gang related.

disliking graffiti is reasonable and being concerned about the economic resources consumed by its removal is also a valid concern but let's keep the hyperbole to a minimum. if nothing else, do a little research before spouting off grand theories based on hearsay and minutes from the CAPS meetings.

n / April 26, 2006 11:03 AM

re the fall of 'broken windows':

http://www.cjcj.org/pubs/windows/windows.html
http://chronicle.com/free/v47/i22/22a01401.htm
http://www.planetizen.com/node/19315
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/02/19/the_cracks_in_broken_windows/
http://www.aclu-sc.org/News/OpenForum/100424/100434/

and a quick web search will bring many more...

m / April 26, 2006 11:52 AM

Most graffiti I see is not gang related. None of the stuff along the el is, as far as I can tell. If you see 5 or 6-point stars, crosses, crowns, pitchforks, number sets like '7-4-14' (Gangster Disciple Nation), acronymns like ALKN or GD, or any references to 'people' or 'folks,' it's gang graffiti. It usually gets removed quickly when called in.

As for the el track stuff, keep in mind that graffiti blasters won’t risk their lives like the taggers do, so it takes longer to remove.

Thad / April 26, 2006 12:20 PM

Unfortunately, n, you are less than right about graffiti and the broken window theory of crime prevention. Graffiti is a part of the theory, and eradication of graffiti on NYC subways in late '80s and early 90s--as well as in the laterGuiliani years--was one activity/goal of those who supported this theory of crime prevention.

I am glad you apparently speak for large numbers of poor and middle class folk, though. I am sure you have the research to back up your broad claims about how most people in those neighborhoods think.

I've actually been through some pretty tough parts of Chicago, and have even worked there every so often. I see a fair amount of graffiti.

Raymond Molinar / April 26, 2006 1:42 PM

It's a shame that any topic even loosely related to crime in Chicago always seems to compel macho chest-beating by some who feel that living in town X amount of years entitles one to a doctorate in crime and the authority to rule on what consitutes an acceptable level of lawbreaking. To hear some tell it, we should get down on our knees and thank God that only 447 people were killed in Chicago last year, and that only 1,600 people reported being sexually assaulted. Apparently these figures constitute an urban Shangri-La. Unfortunately, my having lived in Chicago less than 20/30/100 years makes my viewpoint irrelevant.

mike / April 26, 2006 2:03 PM

latina:
lol
that's how some of them see it.
i have HS students write about it all the time; they are concerned their neighborhoods are changing and not all of them live in bad neighborhoods obviously. We also did a survey; out of 32 kids 7 had computers at home.

n / April 26, 2006 2:14 PM

well thad, i actually tried to post some links to scholarly articles regarding the fallacy that is the 'broken window' theory but this post never showed up. it would easy enough for you to google the topic and find them yourself. what i did NOT find were any recent socialogical studies supporting the theory.

[the following can get you started on that research that you requested: Bernard Harcourt Illusion of Order: The False Promise of Broken Windows Policing, Harvard University Press, 2001; Ralph Taylor Breaking Away From Broken Windows Westview Press, 2001; University of Chicago Law Review, v.73; also see Robert J. Sampson's (U. of C.) survey of 24,000 city blocks in the mid 1990s and the San Francisco Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice's study entitled Shattering "Broken Windows": An Analysis of San Francisco's Alternative Crime Policies.]

the statistics showing reduced crime in the late 80s and early 90s (which occurred across the nation, regardless of cities' crime deterrent policies) alone do not prove a cause and effect relationship between disorder and serious crime, which is exactly what this theory claims. i never suggested that the theory didn't claim graffiti eradication as one of its major tenets; what i was getting at was that the theory has yet to be validated through either scholarship or what i would consider to be basic observations.

and your right, thad, i shouldn't have attempted to speak for most of the middle and working class people in this city. i only meant merely to share my experiences and those that i grew up with. believe it or not, but i think my observations are germane to this dicsussion as i grew up in an ethnically-mixed, middle and working class part of rogers park. i think it represents a fair cross-section of the city, demographically speaking. but maybe you had a different experience growing up here, thad? if so, please share it. or maybe you didn't grow up here at all?

also, please let me know which "tough parts" of the city you've been to where you've seen a lot of graffiti. i'd like to go see for myself. cause there's not much in austin, garfield park, englewood, lawndale, greater grand crossing, east side, back of the yards... should i go on?

Andrew / April 26, 2006 3:04 PM

Sorry about that, n -- your links tripped our spam protection software. The post is now published above.

Thad / April 26, 2006 3:15 PM

Thanks, n, for the info re: broken windows. I appreciate it.

I've worked in some of those neighborhoods you mention, dating back to the mid 90s (not on a constant basis, but usually in spurts). I'm not lying: I really have seen a fair amount of graffiti. Unfortunately, I don't have exact block numbers written down, you will have to either believe me or not.

I did not grow up here, but I don't see how that matters. I just wanted to point out that you are unlikely to speak for so many people. I know working class people who grew up in neighborhoods rougher than Rogers Park, and for them, graffiti was a problem. That's all I'm saying.

Question: Besides the economic improvement experienced by NYC in the '90s, what do you think caused the reduction in crime there? And what lessons does that hold for Chicago?

m / April 26, 2006 3:25 PM

I don't think the police need to be doing some of the broken windows stuff like cycling the mentally ill through the criminal justice system ... but I strongly believe petty crime shouldn't be tolerated. It's still illegal to jump the turnstyle. It's still illegal to threaten someone (assault). It;s still illegal to tag private property. I agree that no drop or increase in crime is easily attributable to one thing, but that doesn't mean petty crime should be tolerated.

It's complex: I've often wondered if the spread of cell phone ownership has had a noticeable impact on reported/solved crime. I think the fact that NYC doesn't have alleys in many parts of the city affects their crime rate. And remember that every murder in Chicago was also an assault ... in some cities (like D.C.) an assault becomes a homicide simply because the ambulance took longer to get there. Chicago's street grid has probably saved its share of lives.

PC / April 26, 2006 3:50 PM

And don't forget, Chicago's alleys have saved us the stink of our neighbors' garbage on the sidewalks

n / April 26, 2006 4:08 PM

thad: thanks for the thoughtful comments and info. i certainly didn't mean to suggest that your opinion would be less valid than mine if you didn't grow up here, but rather that i had first hand knowledge of the topic during that specific period of time.

for many years i've felt that too much time and money has been spent on graffiti removal and police surveillance on taggers (don't remember what police district exactly, but in 'west town' there are, i believe, three full-time officers assigned to graffiti detail) which could be going to much worthier services. you're surely right in that many inner-city people dislike graffiti but i suspect that if given the choice, some (perhaps many?) would rather see these resources allocated more effectively towards other critical issues such as housing, health care, day care, etc. since the 'broken windows' argument has been used by some to justify this expense, i think that a better understanding of this phenomenon is crucial to getting monies more effectively distributed around the city.

i doubt i have much to say regarding your question that isn't already more cogently explained in some of the articles and books mentioned. i certainly don't have a definitive answer but i think that this is the point that these researchers are getting at in their studies: that 'broken windows' is a gross oversimplification of an incredibly complex situation. i think that one can say with some confidence that a particular theory is implausible without necessarily having the solution to that problem. i don't know nearly enough about new york's economy in the last two decades to try and extract policy recommendations for chicago, but if a solution exists in any one particular sphere, i would have to say this: employment! [check out When Work Disappears : The World of the New Urban Poor by William Julius Wilson.

Spence / April 26, 2006 4:14 PM

http://www.chicagoist.com/archives/2006/04/26/from_stickers_to_spray_paint_with_blutt.php#more

Interesting interview on Chicagoist with a Street Artist discussing graffiti and street art among other things.

Emerson Dameron / April 26, 2006 4:32 PM

A lot of graphic designers are moving into neighborhoods where there's crime they didn't know about before. I find most tags annoying at best, but at least they're not trying to sell me anything. I'm not threatened by graffiti. Or teenagers yelling "profanities," for that matter. At least they're not trying to sell me anything. Those Brownie Scout Ponzi schemers - now THEY can kiss my ass.

Maggie / April 26, 2006 4:36 PM

Another crime I see getting worse in the city is dogs off leash and people not cleaning up after their dogs. This is rarely, if ever, enforced - and when enforcement has been attempted it usually becomes some sort of fiasco. How is having a dog off-leash somehow a 'better' crime than graffiti? Just curious.

mike-ts / April 26, 2006 4:55 PM

I've never been to a caps or neighborhood watch meeting, and have no really grand theories to espouse. I just have memories of growing up in Gary in the late 70's/early 80's to keep me warm on cool spring nights.

Pitchforks usually got painted or markered on the backs of street signs. Crowns were usually spray painted on the alley-side of garages. Some group called "wrong way" also did a lot of advertising, and I vaguely remember something like "ivl" and "rapping warrior", a lyrical gang I guess. I knew someone on 35th & Georgia whose father had the brazen audacity to get the roller out and paint over a crown on his garage. Got the heck beat out of him in his own driveway ~ 6:30 am while going to the car to drive to the mill.

Common reaction was to cower and act like it wasn't there. "Leave the ugly pitchfork on the telephone pole alone, we're selling the house this summer and moving to Valpo, so don't worry about it." So when I think of a forest of squiggles and initials on a wall, I think of this. One day I'll take a class to teach me that names and simple drawings etched on light poles and stop signs really stand for hugs & kisses.

Emerson Dameron / April 26, 2006 6:09 PM

This reminds me of the people in Fullerton who, in hopes of emasculating gangs, changed the name of their street from Baker Street to Iris Court.

Moon / April 26, 2006 10:41 PM

No, not in my neighborhood. But the Cabrini Green people had to move SOMEWHERE! Maybe they moved to Bucktown, where the headline writer lives.

Kevin / April 27, 2006 8:18 AM

A word about the response to Mayor Daley and the foie gras flap (I'm sorry about that one. I truly am): I love how everytime the city does something that is good, even though it doesn't have to do with gangs or parking, so many people complain and say the city council has better things to do than worry about birds. I'm sorry, but if animal rights aren't something the city council should be thinking about, I don't know what is.

asdf / April 27, 2006 9:01 AM

"How is having a dog off-leash somehow a 'better' crime than graffiti? Just curious."

Well, the dog people for the most part are probably law-abiding tax payers. The ones who use the park near my house are awesome and their presence has made a very noticeable impact on my neighborhood. They make the neighborhood safer because they're out at all hours. On numerous occasions I have had to cross paths with hoodie-wearing thugs in the middle of the night and the dog people 100 feet away have made me feel safer. Most of these people clean up after their dogs. I'll run the miniscule risk of getting bitten on the ankle by a westie if it means I'm less likely to get robbed. Anyone who feels the police should crack down on dogs off leash should have to patrol my neighborhood from 5-11 p.m.

If anyone on the city council wants to volunteer at an animal shelter or lead the campaign against foie gras in their free time, they're more than welcome to. It is a noble cause. But at $90,000/year, Joe Moore (foie gras) and Mary Ann Smith (elephants) should be doing their fricking jobs on city time. Daley is right, but I find it comical that he;s saying it NOW, or that it needs to be said at all. He deserves no medal for common sense.

matty / April 27, 2006 9:18 AM

You know what I think is utter garbage?

The theory that that guy proposed in his Freakonomics book.

For some reason that was embraced by the liberal intelligencia - that is, because there are less poor people born, there is less crime.

My feeling is that there are actually, numbers wise, more poor people than there were before (more puertor ricans in nyc than in the 70's that's for sure) but they were moved out of their own neigborhoods.

I mean, the reason manhattan has such low crime rates is because it is full of rich white people - poor black people can't afford to live there. Same with Lincoln Park.

Also there's something kind of Nazi about saying that if we pre-emptively eliminate "the problem" it will go away. *shudder*

p.s - i am totally pro-choice.

Vanessa / April 27, 2006 9:41 AM

I agree with Matty: poor black people are criminals. And they reproduce like rabbitts, so it's only going to get worse.

shechemist / April 27, 2006 9:51 AM

The ones (dog-owners)who use the park near my house are awesome and their presence has made a very noticeable impact on my neighborhood.

When I lived in Seattle, one of the smarter things the city did was to create dog parks in a few of the high crime parks. It chased out the dealers and thugs, and people could let their kids play in the rest of the park without worrying that their kids were going step on needles, broken beer bottles or used condoms.

Hoodie Wearing Thug / April 27, 2006 10:05 AM

I wish more whyte bytches would move inta my hood. Y'all have bling foe me ta steel, and ya can afford aborshunz.

matty / April 27, 2006 10:09 AM

Vanessa, maybe I wasn't clear.

The book suggests that because of the increase in abortions in the 70's and 80's less poor babies were born.

I'm saying that that is wrong and to even make that link is nefarious at best.

Even worse, is that by moving "the problem" from affluent areas to other areas you are just displacing the poor and the problems thereof, not fixing it.

Both are fundamentally wrong answers to how crime control should work. The first one is actually really sick, to me at least.

bsdf / April 27, 2006 10:12 AM

so much hateful, cowardly, racist right-wing bullshit on this thread. is this what's become of the smart set in chicago?

asdf / April 27, 2006 10:18 AM

Hoodie Wearing Thug (April 27, 2006 10:05 AM) said:

I wish more whyte bytches would move inta my hood. Y'all have bling foe me ta steel, and ya can afford aborshunz.

Is this supposed to be sarcastic/ironic? Are you making fun of my post, or just trolling? I honestly don't get it. If you'd like to walk around Thorndale and Winthrop with me at 1:00 a.m. some night I can show you the hoodie-wearing thugs. We even had one of those blue light police cameras added to the corner this week.

Thad / April 27, 2006 10:26 AM

BSDF: Can you be more specific, or must we wonder what was so racist?

I assume you are not talking about the obviously sarcastic posts, right?

Julie / April 27, 2006 10:33 AM

I have no interest in explaining away violent crime with talk of changing neighborhoods, lack of resources, or any other excuse. If you could possibly committ a violent crime against another human being, you're an evil, evil fucker and you should be eliminated. I don't care what color you are, what resources you lack, or what's happening in "your" neighborhood, just obey the law, damnit!

carrie / April 27, 2006 10:37 AM

asdf, hey! i live up yonder in the edgewater area. i've only seen one person shot in the four years i've lived there, so i don't think it's too bad, but i do have 15 rounds of 115 grain full-metal jacketed love to give to the next poor bastard that mugs me.

Another thad / April 27, 2006 10:44 AM

In addition to what the first Thad asked, bsdf, can you summarize the position on crime of the loving, couragous, not-racist, left-wing smart set?

Emerson Dameron / April 27, 2006 10:44 AM

Julie:
"If you could possibly committ a violent crime against another human being, you're an evil, evil fucker and you should be eliminated."

Jesus. Ever heard of psychological projection?

Julie / April 27, 2006 10:47 AM

Not really. Is that where the show your thoughts in a movie theater?

loser / April 27, 2006 11:09 AM

why do i get the feeling that upper/middle class white folks are the ones on this board arguing about who knows more about crime statistics? you know what sucks? being a minority, knowing that people you know are in gangs or don't care about change, knowing that the odds are against you when it comes to moving up in society, and that people can't help judging you based on your accent or color of your skin. You don't have any money. You work, and barely make it. And things aren't going to change anytime soon. You're not like some others you know, that break windows just because they're pissed at life. You want something good- you want to create change but aren't sure how and with 2 jobs, where do you get the luxury of extracurricular time? When it's all said and done, you know that you're seen and grouped in with those around you. It's not fair, but they just see you as poor brown foreign trash, who could grafitti their condo's garage door. oh dear! If we're not getting anywhere with this thread, maybe we could ask 'what have you done to improve your/any community/the world lately?'
in the meantime, i'm going to go buy me a moccachino with an extra shot of jaeger.

bsdf / April 27, 2006 3:07 PM

what was racist: all the extremely naieve stereotypes of the urban poor. maybe you've seen 'hoodie wearing thugs,' but what have they done to you, besides provoking your fear? what do you know about poverty and crime? whatever experience you have, you talk like you gentrified those neighborhoods yesterday.

i don't speak for the 'left-wing,' but here's my solution: LISTEN. listen to the people who've lived in high-crime areas for generations, listen to the police who patrol them, SHUT UP and LISTEN to people who know what they're talking about.

ps: thad, now that andrew's killed this topic, i guess you won't have to defend your silly 'broken-window' theory of crime prevention through graf-busting against all those debunkings. lucky break.

m / April 27, 2006 4:42 PM

maybe you've seen 'hoodie wearing thugs,' but what have they done to you, besides provoking your fear?

- Robbed me at gunpoint
- Fired a gun in my alley (2x)
- Fired a gun in front of my apartment
- Killed my friend for no reason in front of me, as I've posted here before (www.justiceforbarry.org)

Sorry I'm not street enough, bsdf. I may be an evil out-of-touch white yuppie gentrifier but I live in a diverse neighborhood and I think I'm smart enough to recognize that most of the kids I see on a daily basis are good kids just dressed like thugs. Please tell me the proper and accepted way I should feel when two hoodie wearing thugs approach me on Thorndale at 12 a.m. and ask me for a square.

http://www.chicagocrime.org/streets/thorndale_ave/1100w/

Thad / April 28, 2006 9:49 AM

Hey bsdf: Before implying someone is a racist, or doesn't know shit about the poor, maybe you should shut the fuck up and learn more about that person, you PC dumbshit.

Next time I get mugged, I'll make sure to Listen, really Listen, to what the mugger is saying.

And broken-window isn't my theory. It's been around for at least 20 years.

bsdf / April 28, 2006 10:42 AM

sounds good, thad. next time i get traumatised, i'll make sure to become a bitter, self-righteous reactionary and assume the worst of everyone.

i don't know you. all i know is that awhile ago you had the option of defending the 'broken window' theory or admitting that, despite all your hard years in the trenches, you still have a lot to learn. you did neither.

i don't know you as a person, i just think your ideas are silly, and i'm saddened that so many people here want to believe your lightweight rhetoric. i guess we'll have to hear endless rehashes of this until the next mass exodus to the suburbs, at which point urban crime won't matter anymore.

bsdf / April 28, 2006 11:08 AM

because i like you so much, thad, i'll give you the last word, so you can go away:

thad said:
dumbshit

Thad / April 28, 2006 2:54 PM

For someone who urges people to listen and learn, you sure make a bunch of assumptions about other people. Great fuckin' mentality.