With all the gang shootings this week, we need to post quickly to keep 'em from getting mixed up. This is what Ald. Cappleman sent out yesterday afternoon:
"I've heard from the 23rd Police District about a shooting today at Sunnyside and Sheridan that resulted in one person wounded. We have contacted all of the schools in the ward to let them know. We have allocated money for cameras at the location of the shooting (Sunnyside and Sheridan) as well as Sunnyside and Clarendon, Sunnyside Mall, and Broadway and West Sheridan. We are hoping to get those cameras installed as soon as possible."
I think the cameras make the hood look ghetto. But in light of recent events....
ReplyDeleteI don't really see the benefit....having video evidence of a young gang member in a white t-shirt shooting doesn't lead to more arrests.....
ReplyDeleteHogdog,
ReplyDeleteI agree. Waste of time and money. Concealed carry might work better. I can't believe I am saying that because I hate guns....
Cameras do serve their purpose of moving the gangs but only to another corner where there are none. I have no answer to getting rid of these animals legally but if I had my way of conceal and carry with Mr. Smith & Wesson. Now that sure do the trick once and for all.
ReplyDeleteI don't know and can't say for certain that the cameras deter crime.
ReplyDeleteOne thing for certain however, the cameras are golden when it comes to collecting evidence. Sometimes it is not the camera at the scene that gets the evidence but one blocks away that catches a suspect fleeing on foot or in a vehicle. The cameras are a tool for police work, and they make a difference.
Concealed carry?
If your in favor of CC and plan on carrying a firearm those cameras are your best friend while answering tough questions after an "incident".
Personally I am against CC, some people watch too much TV and have no idea how to actually use a firearm or its limitations.
Everyone is going to claim they know for sure if the cameras are or are not effective, but I trust the Commander's opinion the most.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not they deter crime, they can be used to identify the perpetrators. Yes, sometimes the cameras push the criminals into the neighborhood streets, but residents are more prone to call 911 when they see a problem than the businesses. Does anyone really think the Currency Exchange calls 911?
These days the cameras are cheap and the blue light can be turned on or off. No one is claiming that cameras are the only solution, but I do see them as one of many ways to address the problem.
London is covered in cameras. I'm not sure that the blue light is necessary or that the authorities really need to identify where the cameras are and how many of them are out there. We want the vermin to think they're being watched 24/7 on every corner and in every alley. I personally don't like being under surveillance 24/7, but that's the only way we're going to reduce the violence. Now, if we could only get Quinn to stop releasing prisoners early due to budgetary shortfalls.
ReplyDeleteI don't have a gun but don't oppose conceal and carry, but I don't know that it would be a factor in these shootings. I mean, how many normal civilians have been attacked in these shootings? Seems like the gangbangers are just shooting at each other and they have every reason to suspect the other party would have guns. What would you law abiding citizens do if you had a gun and saw a gangbanger across or down the street shoot at another gangbanger? Start blasting away yourselves? I can understand using one if you were threatened directly, but that is not what is going on here - law abiding citizens being targeted that is.
ReplyDeleteLets all welcome a plunge in property value shall we?
ReplyDeleteCameras that are meant to deter criminals also deter people from visiting a neighborhood, frequenting businesses, renting or buying a home in that area because it's a big, blue flashing beacon that says "Look! We have problems here!"
In my experience in other neighborhoods, those cameras don't do very much to stop violence. As someone else said, it only relocates criminals to corners where there are no cameras. I personally would rather go without.
Decrease property value-really? Have you been living under a rock? How much more equity loss can a camera cause that our lousy economy has not already consumed?
ReplyDeleteSean, how often do you hear of a gang member shot dead versus an innocent bystander? Even if it were 2 to 1 (and I doubt it is) -it would be too much.
While agree that they are attacking other gang members a great more often than not; these guys are indiscriminate shots that use their guns more for intimidation than to truly kill. Heck, if they were 50% accurate, it wouldn't be such an issue because many more would be dead.
The fact is, the biggest victims are the innocents that don't even see the bullet coming. Yes, if I was packing I would certainly try to apprehend a criminal; and if they shot at me I would at least have the capability of defending myself.
These cameras are a waste of time and money.
ReplyDeleteJames, I like ya, I voted for you. I know you need time to ramp up. But I really hope we start seeing some results by Spring. Cameras and positive loitering aren't going to drive this scum out of Uptown. And that's what needs to happen, drive'em out.
Hey Jimbo, have you spoken to the Commander about why she thinks the cameras are worthwhile? It might be worth asking. I'm guessing that Cappleman did.
ReplyDeletehoping that they turn the blue light off. probably be better that the criminals not know where the cameras are? whats the point of the blue light anyways???
ReplyDelete@holey moley - no. as long as I'm seeing reports of gunshots on a daily basis. they're not working. i wouldn't waste my time asking. period.
ReplyDeleteuptownunity, well duh, I hear of innocents being shot all the time and fortunately that hasn't been the case lately in Uptown. What is your point? My point was about the potential impact that being able to conceal and carry a gun might have on these gang banger shootings, which I feel would be no to little impact. If you had a gun and were one of those innocent bystanders that have bullets whizzing by you from a shooter a half block away, what are you gonna do? Start blasting away and shoot and innocent bystander yourself? Do you think that if those innocent bystanders who have been shot in the past had only had a gun, they wouldn't have been shot? I think most were probably hit by a bullet before they were able to even process what was going on, much less draw a gun if they had one and fire off some shots while being absolutely sure they weren't endangering innocent bystanders themselves. I think having your own gun would only be useful if you or someone else were threatened by someone in close proximity to you, like 10 to 15 ft. away. People could brag that they are accurate from 50, 100 ft. whatever, but if they miss their bullets could just as well kill an innocent bystander. Simply put, I think it would be a very rare instance that a law abiding citizen could use a gun to stop one of these shootings.
ReplyDeleteBlue light cameras do indeed decrease property values. A better solution is hidden cameras
ReplyDeleteThere is a reason you dont see any blue light cameras in affluent neighboehoods, and it isnt necause the police arent watching
Ultimately, increased foot patrols are the answer
I agree with Dave...the Blue Blinkies are worthless.
ReplyDeleteCameras.........good.
A 24 hour police blue flashing light outside your house....bad.
Dave....Where ya been man?
Sean, you raise a strong argument and I agree that handguns are not very effective at even medium range. I also agree that anytime a gun is fired in a dense urban environment, there is great risk to all.
ReplyDeleteMy point is if one cannot say who does or does not have a gun, they will be less inclined to shoot their own.