Monday, May 31, 2010

Person Shot On 4500 Block Of N. Broadway

Sun-Times Media Wire

A gunman riding a bicycle shot a man on an Uptown neighborhood street Monday morning on the North Side.

A person was shot at 5:24 a.m. in the 4500 block of North Broadway, according to police News Affairs Officer Michael Fitzpatrick, citing preliminary information.

The 20-year-old victim was on the street when an assailant riding a bicycle shot him in the groin area, a Town Hall District police captain said.

Continue Reading

30 comments:

  1. This is crazy! Can we please ban handguns so we can stop this mess. OH wait...

    In all seriousness is there any effort to stop this? I just don't see it from the police or the politicians.

    ReplyDelete
  2. deja vu all over again?

    seriously, i used to wake up early to avoid the thugs. what now?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What is it about that intersection?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Reaping what 20 years of self serving political gain has sewn.

    Gonna be a beautiful summer. Looking forward to that shiny new Target. That will fix everything.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hmmm. I've heard of that address before. Let me think....

    Oh yeah, the shooting was in front of Alderman Shiller's office AGAIN, and AGAIN, and AGAIN.

    So, where's Shanghai Shiller now? In hiding at the Chinese Olympic Village again? Or checking to see if it her part time staffer's kid who was seen running and holding a gun like last time?

    ReplyDelete
  6. In a way I feel that handguns need to be banned, but what about us? Look at the senior citizen(who is about what, 80y.o.) who blew some creeps face off all because he felt by home invading he will earn money for dope......no. I would have done the same thing. And what made it so bad this wasn't the first time this happened. He just did what he had to do to protect himself and his poor little wife.So in essence we are put in a bad position.Besides it's way bigger than what we think. Gun ban will never,never happen.

    ReplyDelete
  7. this intersection....come on. get some police presence here! what more has to happen???

    ReplyDelete
  8. Neil,
    Banning handguns solves nothing. In fact, hand guns are currently banned in Chicago... look how good that is working. Gun laws only keep guns out of honest peoples hands. These thugs never purchase guns legally. They would have to ban the manufacturing of handguns, but that is a violation of 2nd Amendment rights.

    Why don't we just boot this lady out of office already and see if that helps.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I was joking. The handgun ban makes absolutely no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "this intersection....come on. get some police presence here! what more has to happen???" MR

    Agreed, but decisions about more cops go by statistics and as much as I hate the crime here, it's much worse on the south and west sides of the city. I rarely excuse Helen, but it's not her call about getting more police here.

    Now it would be nice to see what she's doing to work with the police and the community to address crime. As far as I can tell, it's nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The crime might be worse on the south and west sides, but it definitely is not worse on the South side of this 23rd District. Why do we have to live with crime of this nature while Lincoln Park and wriggleyville police beats have equal numbers of officers who have little or no crime with which to deal.

    I hold the Commander responsible for not shifting resources from the crime free end of the district to the Northern 10 section, where anything goes. But then again, how did the South end of the District get cleaned up? By pushing the crime North into the Uptown containment zone, where crime is allowed to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Does anyone know if the victim was an innocent bystander or if this was gang-on-gang crime?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I beg to differ--Helen can be much more vocal about getting increased police at that corner, if she is asking, it's not apparent to her constituents.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If an alderman has the authority to get more police into their ward, then there's a big problem. All the aldermen (except for Helen of course) would be screaming for more police and the one who screamed the loudest would get more police. I don't think so. That's not the way to equitably address crime.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Perhaps we need to place these signs within one block of Shiller's office.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Guns are like drugs - the more they are available legally, the more they will be available illegally. The laws of one city cannot control the weapons economy in the whole country.

    How about we let Walmart sell heroin, but only to those over 21? Kids will never get it then, right?

    People from civilized countries shake their heads in wonder at our blindness. More guns equals more violence. Duh.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I'd certainly expect a larger police presence, otherwise who will want to come from out of the area to shop at the new target store?

    If there's two shootings per week in the vicinity it would certainly give many people pause to consider where they shop.

    Speaking of shopping, Baum Realty the rental agent for WY indicated back in 2008 tenant for the other retail spaces on Broadway and Montrose.

    http://www.baumrealty.com/images/flyers/chicago/wilsonyard-flyer.pdf

    "Join AT&T, Subway, Hair Cuttery, Play N Trade"... as tenants, yet I see no sign of buildout in any of the store fronts.

    Crime is one of the key reasons there are so many vacancies in Uptown retail.

    ReplyDelete
  18. YAWN. I am so used to this it is not even news anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The CPD already allocates more resources in the northern part of the district. They go where the crime occurs.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'd certainly expect a larger police presence, otherwise who will want to come from out of the area to shop at the new target store?

    People will come. They will just come in their SUVs, load up and then leave the area. This will not be a problem for Target. It will, however, be a problem for local residents who paid a lot of money into a TIF because they were duped into thinking that a big box store alone could generate critical mass for across-the-board improvements for current residents. The Montrose/Sheridan/Broadway intersection is already a mess and the influx of SUVs needing their weekly fill-up of plastic crap from China will only make it worse. There are too many morons who don't understand the angled street, where to stop at the lights and where the turn lanes are. It will need to be redesigned fast because even small fender-benders will be a nightmare for this 3 way intersection.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "The CPD already allocates more resources in the northern part of the district. They go where the crime occurs."

    They also allocate where the money is. Take the Gold Coast and Mag Mile, there are more police down there than anywhere in the city. Why? Because money talks.
    Panhandling is against the law down there and they do arrest the beggars. There's not much crime in those areas because their Alderman doesn't put up with it and again...MONEY TALKS!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Sassy, you said exactly what I have been thinking all along. Well put!

    ReplyDelete
  23. "Panhandling is against the law down there and they do arrest the beggars. There's not much crime in those areas because their Alderman doesn't put up with it and again...MONEY TALKS!" -Kris

    Kris, panhandling is not against the law unless it's aggressive. There is a lot of crime downtown but it's not the same type of crime we see in Uptown. Downtown has a ton of theft.

    It's more productive to focus on things where we have some control and more police presence in Uptown ain't within our control or the alderman's. If you think it is, show me this bit of secret information.

    ReplyDelete
  24. More guns equals more violence. Duh.

    Guns don't kill people.

    Bullets kill people.

    Guns just make them go really fast.

    Actually, guns only make bullets go really fast if someone loads them into a weapon, aims (or, whatever these gang bangers do), and squeezes the trigger.

    So, really - guns don't kill people.

    People kill people.

    The solution to the violence has very little to do with the legality or illegality of handguns, and everything to do with how kids are raised and educated.

    And, as we've seen recently, baseball bats and pick-axes are as readily available for violent acts.

    Especially when so many of these perps are as dumb as the proverbial post.

    A lot of other countries look at the richest country in the world and wonder how we've become so blind to the needs and benefits of PROPERLY educating and caring for our children.

    You want to stop this violence, stop pointing fingers at the weapons manufacturers and start pointing them where they'll do some good: at the failing parents and the politicians who enable them.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Neil, stop looking to the Police when you look for a serious effort to stop the gun violence. The Police are already doing their job. They are overworked and stretched so thin they are at the breaking point. You should be looking to the judicial system instead. Ask them to do their job. I'm sure you saw the expose on FOX news last week in which the judges were exposed for only working a few hours a day. This has been going on for years. Also, look to the S/A's office for relief. They to seem to be dropping the ball. Case in point. Remember the old man that shot and killed the home invader last week? Well guess what my guys did a few weeks ago with the now deceased. They caught him with a gun as he tried to break into a car. Guess what happened to the gun charge when they called the Felony Review Unit seeking felony charges? DENIED! As is usually the case. No sir, stop blaming the police and the alderman for this surge in crime. Place the blame where it belongs. On the courts and the states attorney office!

    ReplyDelete
  26. No sir, stop blaming the police and the alderman for this surge in crime. Place the blame where it belongs. On the courts and the states attorney office!

    The State's Attorney is an elected office.

    As is the State's Attorney General.

    Who, by the way, endorsed Shiller in 2007.

    Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  27. Yes, but look at the definition of Aggressive Panhandling.

    8-4-025 Aggressive panhandling.

    (a) Definitions. For purposes of this section:

    (1) “Panhandling” means any solicitation made in person upon any street, public place or park in the city, in which a person requests an immediate donation of money or other gratuity from another person, and includes but is not limited to seeking donations:

    (A) By vocal appeal; or

    (B) Where the person being solicited receives an item or service of little or no monetary value in exchange for a donation, under circumstances where a reasonable person would understand that the transaction is in substance a donation.

    “Panhandling” shall not include the act of passively standing or sitting nor performing music, singing or other street performance with a sign or other indication that a donation is sought, without any vocal request except in response to an inquiry by another person. Nothing in this section shall be construed to permit any sound currently prohibited by Chapter 11-4 of this Code.

    (2) “Public place” shall mean any area to which the public is invited or permitted, and includes the public way.

    (3) “Automated teller machine” means any automated teller machine as defined by the Automated Teller Machine Security Act, 205 ILCS 695, as amended.

    (4) “Bank” means any bank or financial institution as defined by the Illinois Banking Act, 205 ILCS 5, as amended.

    (5) “Currency exchange” means any currency exchange as defined by the Currency Exchange Act, 205 ILCS 405, as amended.

    (b) It shall be unlawful to engage in an act of panhandling:

    (1) When either the panhandler or the person being solicited is located within any of the following locations: within ten feet of a bus shelter or a posted Chicago Transit Authority bus stop sign; in any public transportation vehicle or public transportation facility; in a vehicle which is parked or stopped on a public street or alley, except for those solicitations permitted under Section 10-8-160 of this Code; in a sidewalk café or restaurant; in a filling station; or within ten feet in any direction from an automatic teller machine or entrance to a bank or currency exchange; or

    (2) In a manner that a reasonable person would find intimidating, including any of the following actions when undertaken in a manner that a reasonable person would find intimidating:

    (A) Touching the solicited person without the solicited person's consent;

    (B) Panhandling a person while such person is standing in line and waiting to be admitted to a commercial establishment;

    (C) Blocking the path of a person being solicited, or the entrance to any building or vehicle;

    (D) Following behind, ahead or alongside a person who walks away from the panhandler after being solicited;

    (E) Using profane or abusive language, either during the solicitation or following a refusal to make a donation, or making any statement, gesture, or other communication which would cause a reasonable person to be fearful or feel compelled; or

    (F) Panhandling in a group of two or more persons.

    (c) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be subject to a fine of $50.00 for a first or second offense within a 12-month period, and a fine of $100.00 for a third or subsequent offense within a 12-month period.

    (d) The provisions of this section are declared to be separate and severable. The invalidity of any provision of this section, or the invalidity of the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this section, or the validity of its application to other persons or circumstances.

    (Added Coun. J. 9-29-04, p. 32193, § 1)

    ReplyDelete
  28. THANKS TRUTHBEARER, I APPRECIATE THE BACKUP.

    ReplyDelete
  29. @Kris: Not sure how that validated your argument. You suggested arrest, when according to the statute the consequence is just a fine:
    "(c) Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be subject to a fine of $50.00 for a first or second offense within a 12-month period, and a fine of $100.00 for a third or subsequent offense within a 12-month period."

    ReplyDelete