^

I'm all for open dialogue.

 

On a related note:

 

On April 19, 2007 the Friends of the Collaborative will hold a public forum on the Collaborative Agreement featuring the following panel members:

 

Court-Appointed Monitor Saul Green/Monitor’s Staff

 

City Manager Milton Dahoney

 

Chief Thomas Streicher

 

ACLU Attorney Al Gerhardstein

 

FOP President Kathy Harrell

 

These esteemed panel members are the most well-informed individuals in our community on the Collaborative Agreement, the progress that has been made under it and the outlook for the reforms made under it after the scheduled August 2007 expiration.  They will share their perspectives on achievements and future outlook and answer questions from the public.

 

We hope you will be able to attend this important public discussion on a matter of great importance to the community.  It will be held at the Urban League on Thursday, April 19 from 5:30 – 7:30 pm.  Refreshments will be provided.

 

I am planning on attending this meeting.  McMicken, do you have a link to the agreement itself that you could post.

^

Here is the page with the Agreement and all the followup reports:

 

http://ci.cincinnati.oh.us/police/pages/-5111-/

Monitor: City cops mostly in compliance

BY GREGORY KORTE | [email protected]

April 10, 2007

 

CINCINNATI - The Cincinnati Police Department has complied with more than 90 percent of the provisions of an agreement to end the use of excessive force, a court-appointed monitor said Tuesday.

 

In his final report on the Justice Department agreement before it expires Thursday, monitor Saul A. Green declared that “significant accomplishments in police reforms have taken place… These reforms are a strong foundation for sustained and continued improvement in policing in Cincinnati.”

 

The Justice Department agreement, signed by the city manager and the attorney general in 2002, dictated reforms in police policy, training and officer discipline in the use of force against suspects.

 

It followed the 2001 shooting of Timothy D. Thomas in Over-the-Rhine, the 15th police custody death in six years.

 

Since then, there have been two.

 

“I believe that the work under the (agreement) has a direct relation to those numbers,” Green said in an interview. “There has been less injury and deaths to perpetrators, and fewer injuries to officers.”

 

But the monitor stopped just short of giving the department a clean bill, finding only partial compliance in three areas:

 

-- Investigation of citizen complaints by internal affairs officers and the independent Citizen Complaint Authority.

 

“While the level of thoroughness of these investigations has improved significantly since the beginning of the monitoring process, we determined there were still investigations that did not meet the requirements,” Green wrote.

 

-- The city has resolved technical problems related to an Employee Tracking System database to monitor police conduct. “What is crucial, however, is that the data and analysis in the ETS must be used by the CPD supervisors and management to manage risk and liability, and promote civil rights,” the monitor said.

 

-- Documentation of use of force incidents. The monitor noted a weakness in making sure the subjects were interviewed.

 

Green also cautioned that he wasn’t able to review police incidents in the past six months.

 

The monitor’s oversight will continue for at least four months, when a related accord – the Collaborative Agreement – is scheduled to expire. That agreement settled a class-action lawsuit on racial profiling, and emphasizes community crime prevention.

 

Read the report at:

http://cincinnatimonitor.org/SixteenthReport.pdf

very true, I find it interesting that people use murders as the mark of whether a community is dangerous or not.  murders (and I am using murder and homicide interchangably here) are unquestionably the most severe crimes that can be committed, but they are also perhaps the most motive intensive.  Murders are rarely crimes of opportunities and generally when they are crimes of opportunities they are from badly botched robberies or burglaries.  Murders are also rarely accidents with the rare exception of stray bullets.  I don't have any statistics on this, but I would imagine that the majortiy of the in murders that occured the victim and the attacker knew each other or the victim and the attacker were both engaged in the parralell economy in a competiting manner.

 

I'm glad you said it...because I didn't want to get into it.

 

Oh and on a side note, the federal government has a HUGE impact on crime rates.  The programs they fund and don't fund have a direct correlation to the amount of criminal activity that occurs.  Not to mention crime is very much related to economics...so the more the feds screw over the middle and lower classes = more crime.  The most recent example is that of Cincinnati trying to ban illegal firearms...but their hands are tied by the federal government.  Now over 180 mayors from across the nation have joined together to get this changed (NYC and Boston are spearheading this effort...Bloomberg was in Cincy this morning for Cincy's announcement).

very true, I find it interesting that people use murders as the mark of whether a community is dangerous or not.  murders (and I am using murder and homicide interchangably here) are unquestionably the most severe crimes that can be committed, but they are also perhaps the most motive intensive.  Murders are rarely crimes of opportunities and generally when they are crimes of opportunities they are from badly botched robberies or burglaries.  Murders are also rarely accidents with the rare exception of stray bullets.  I don't have any statistics on this, but I would imagine that the majortiy of the in murders that occured the victim and the attacker knew each other or the victim and the attacker were both engaged in the parralell economy in a competiting manner.

 

I'm glad you said it...because I didn't want to get into it.

 

Oh and on a side note, the federal government has a HUGE impact on crime rates.  The programs they fund and don't fund have a direct correlation to the amount of criminal activity that occurs.  Not to mention crime is very much related to economics...so the more the feds screw over the middle and lower classes = more crime.  The most recent example is that of Cincinnati trying to ban illegal firearms...but their hands are tied by the federal government.  Now over 180 mayors from across the nation have joined together to get this changed (NYC and Boston are spearheading this effort...Bloomberg was in Cincy this morning for Cincy's announcement).

 

What programs are you talking about specifically?  What do you mean by illegal firearms?  Are you wanting all firearms to be illegal, or just a certain type?

Things like semi-automatics...hand guns...assault riffles...etc.  You know the kind of guns that are made for killing people!

 

 

:shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: .................... :-o

Things like semi-automatics...hand guns...assault riffles...etc.  You know the kind of guns that are made for killing people!

 

 

:shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: :shoot: .................... :-o

 

Ok I want you to do me a favor.  Find out how many people were murdered in the city of Cincinnati by someone with a firearm that they legally possesed.  The banning of firearms will do absolutely nothing for the city.  The majority of people killing others with guns don't own them legally.  So by banning gun ownership you are actually doing absolutely nothing.  Except of course taking the opportunity for someone to defend themself out of the equation.  If you honestly thing that by banning firearms crime will go down, then I have to seriously reconsider how smart I thought you were. 

I don't think anyone is advocating banning all firearms from the city, but what about banning handguns?  I think most people would agree the best way to defend you home (using a firearm) is with a shorter barrelled pistol grip pump action shotgun

I don't think anyone is advocating banning all firearms from the city, but what about banning handguns?  I think most people would agree the best way to defend you home (using a firearm) is with a shorter barrelled pistol grip pump action shotgun

 

ROFLMAO....I guess if you wanted to make a mess that will definitely do the job. 

It does a lot actually.  It gives the judicial system one more item to charge the individuals with when they are brought to court.  It also gives individuals that much more reason to question carrying a weapon of that nature.  I'm not saying that banning gun ownership is the answer, nor did I ever suggest it.  I just don't think it is necessary for ANYONE to be carrying around those types of weapons, if you disagree than that is a fundamental difference between you and I.

 

The United States has one of the highest crime rates and more specifically murder rates in the world.  You tell me what the difference is here...and please make a productive suggestion that will help to solve the problem...rather than simply complaining about it.

 

It is inappropriate to say..."oh the crime in the city is out of control" but when they try to take progressive steps in correcting that perceived problem you then claim that its useless and a waste of time.  Well its good to know that the efforts to reduce crime in our city our futile.

I don't think anyone is advocating banning all firearms from the city, but what about banning handguns?  I think most people would agree the best way to defend you home (using a firearm) is with a shorter barrelled pistol grip pump action shotgun

 

ROFLMAO....I guess if you wanted to make a mess that will definitely do the job. 

 

look its dark, you are awakened in the middle of the night, your aim isn't going to be great, and the rounds probably won't penetrate multiple walls and accidentally kill you sleeping family.

 

I have no problem with long arms, they fall under the second amendment, (millitia don't fight with pistols)  you can't conceal a rifle, walking down the street with one is obvious.  Look at switzerland, many rifles, little crime.  United States many handguns, lots of crime.

I don't think anyone is advocating banning all firearms from the city, but what about banning handguns?  I think most people would agree the best way to defend you home (using a firearm) is with a shorter barrelled pistol grip pump action shotgun

 

ROFLMAO....I guess if you wanted to make a mess that will definitely do the job. 

 

look its dark, you are awakened in the middle of the night, your aim isn't going to be great, and the rounds probably won't penetrate multiple walls and accidentally kill you sleeping family.

 

I have no problem with long arms, they fall under the second amendment, (millitia don't fight with pistols)  you can't conceal a rifle, walking down the street with one is obvious.  Look at switzerland, many rifles, little crime.  United States many handguns, lots of crime.

 

Nope...your argument is flawed.  If the majority of crimes commited with hand guns were by people who legally owned th gun, then I would agree with you.  Unfortunately...the majority of crimes commited with guns are by people who illegally possess then.  So if they're carrying them illegally in the first place, then how is making them illegal for everyone going to change that?  All it's going to do is make it impossible for actual law abiding citizens to defend themselves against any intruder or punk on the street that is carrying a fire arm

It does a lot actually.  It gives the judicial system one more item to charge the individuals with when they are brought to court.  It also gives individuals that much more reason to question carrying a weapon of that nature.  I'm not saying that banning gun ownership is the answer, nor did I ever suggest it.  I just don't think it is necessary for ANYONE to be carrying around those types of weapons, if you disagree than that is a fundamental difference between you and I.

 

The United States has one of the highest crime rates and more specifically murder rates in the world.  You tell me what the difference is here...and please make a productive suggestion that will help to solve the problem...rather than simply complaining about it.

 

It is inappropriate to say..."oh the crime in the city is out of control" but when they try to take progressive steps in correcting that perceived problem you then claim that its useless and a waste of time.  Well its good to know that the efforts to reduce crime in our city our futile.

It does a lot actually.  It gives the judicial system one more item to charge the individuals with when they are brought to court.  It also gives individuals that much more reason to question carrying a weapon of that nature.  I'm not saying that banning gun ownership is the answer, nor did I ever suggest it.  I just don't think it is necessary for ANYONE to be carrying around those types of weapons, if you disagree than that is a fundamental difference between you and I.

 

The United States has one of the highest crime rates and more specifically murder rates in the world.  You tell me what the difference is here...and please make a productive suggestion that will help to solve the problem...rather than simply complaining about it.

 

It is inappropriate to say..."oh the crime in the city is out of control" but when they try to take progressive steps in correcting that perceived problem you then claim that its useless and a waste of time.  Well its good to know that the efforts to reduce crime in our city our futile.

 

They already do have that in the judicial system...it's called a gun specification charge. 

 

I'm not saying that efforts to reduce crime are futile.  I'm just saying this one is.  Let's think about this logically and do a little role play.  I'm a robber and you're a citizen of Cincinnati out on a weeknight stroll.  Now...if handguns are illegal and I want to rob you, then I know that there is now way you have a gun hidden on you somewhere and I can come up and rob you at will.  If you decide to resist, I might just go ahead and shoot you with the gun I carry illegally, or cut you, or just beat the crap out of you.  However, if handguns are legalized and you carry a permit for that weapon, then I now have to make a decision.  Do I risk trying to rob you knowing that you could have a gun and kill me, or do I just walk the other way.  Let's say I do try to rob you.  I come up to you and demand your wallet.  You try to protect your property and your life by refusing, and you pull a gun on me.  You just saved yourself from a robbery and possible saved your life because you had the option of using that gun.  Now, I ask this question.  Both scenarios suck I know that, but I would rather have the choice of protecting myself than no chance at all.  Don't you agree.  ;)

I don't think anyone is advocating banning all firearms from the city, but what about banning handguns?  I think most people would agree the best way to defend you home (using a firearm) is with a shorter barrelled pistol grip pump action shotgun

 

ROFLMAO....I guess if you wanted to make a mess that will definitely do the job. 

 

look its dark, you are awakened in the middle of the night, your aim isn't going to be great, and the rounds probably won't penetrate multiple walls and accidentally kill you sleeping family.

 

I have no problem with long arms, they fall under the second amendment, (millitia don't fight with pistols)  you can't conceal a rifle, walking down the street with one is obvious.  Look at switzerland, many rifles, little crime.  United States many handguns, lots of crime.

 

That's one of the most ignorant, idiotic, outlandish arguments I've ever heard.  Yeah, familty values, judicial system, government, and community have absolutely nothing to do with crime in Switzerland, just the length of the barrel on the gun the people there own.  You know what?  I'm going to take your argument one step further using a very sensitive subject, just to shed some light on the absurdity of the argument you just tried to use.  By your logic then black people are the reason for crime.  Look at Switzerland...very few black people...little crime.  Look at the United States.....lots of black people.....lots of crime.  You're going to have to do a lot better than that buddy. :wave:

2000 world homicide rates:

 

The Wild Wild East is at the top, but good old Finland (which also has a high alcholism rate) is up there too...and then theres those hot-blooded Spaniards and cold-blooded Ulstermen.

 

2000. World

Homicide Rates.

Descending order. Followed by

alphabetical list.

 

50.14 South Africa

21.40 Russia (1999)

10.00 Lithuania

_9.94 Estonia

_6.22 Latvia

_5.64 U.S.A.

_2.94 Spain

_2.86 Finland

_2.84 Northern Ireland

_2.72 Czech Republic

_2.65 Slovakia

_2.58 New Zealand

_2.50 Romania

_2.31 Turkey (1999)

_2.23 Poland

_2.11 Scotland

_2.04 Hungary

_1.97 Sweden

_1.81 Australia

_1.79 France

_1.76 Canada

_1.61 England & Wales

_1.54 Belgium

_1.50 Greece

_1.48 Ireland (Eire)

_1.42 Netherlands

_1.42 Italy

_1.41 Slovenia

_1.24 Portugal

_1.17 Germany

_1.10 Japan

_1.09 Norway

_1.09 Denmark

_1.06 Malta

_1.01 Austria

_0.96 Switzerland

_0.60 Cyprus

_0.23 Luxembourg

.

I've read a report that says Scotland now is up there with Finland as a high-murder-rate place, but people use knives there too. 

Let's think about this logically and do a little role play.  I'm a robber and you're a citizen of Cincinnati out on a weeknight stroll.  Now...if handguns are illegal and I want to rob you, then I know that there is now way you have a gun hidden on you somewhere and I can come up and rob you at will.  If you decide to resist, I might just go ahead and shoot you with the gun I carry illegally, or cut you, or just beat the crap out of you.  However, if handguns are legalized and you carry a permit for that weapon, then I now have to make a decision.  Do I risk trying to rob you knowing that you could have a gun and kill me, or do I just walk the other way.  Let's say I do try to rob you.  I come up to you and demand your wallet.  You try to protect your property and your life by refusing, and you pull a gun on me.  You just saved yourself from a robbery and possible saved your life because you had the option of using that gun.  Now, I ask this question.  Both scenarios suck I know that, but I would rather have the choice of protecting myself than no chance at all.  Don't you agree.

 

Personally I'm not a big fan of the general public taking the law into their own hands.  That can get out of control VERY quickly.  If you notice, a couple of months ago one man shot an intruder/robber...then you immediately heard of another couple similar occurrences.  All of a sudden you have people thinking they can take the law into their own hands and thats even MORE dangerous in my opinion.

 

There is no perfect solution to this problem, but I don't think that allowing more people to carry guns (and guns made for killing people at that) is the right solution.  By doing that you are just increasing the odds that people use those guns...and there is then an increased possibility that they will use them inappropriately.  More violence does not fix/cure an existing problem of violence.

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city and make a living without taking any responsibility for the health and safety of the community.  -- I had to continue the thought...just a little humor.

 

Hey, I say its fine to have your views, but I feel like I am listening to Bill Cunninham.  It's as if Dearborn County is some oasis, although that might be going too far.  It is important to remember that there would be no suburbs without the city and that the future of the metro will be forever linked to the future of the city.  Most people on this site understand this and are interested in a healthy future for the city - instead of running from what you consider the bad things why not think of what you could do to make it better? 

 

Believe me, many people are frustrated with the pace at which things move but at some point things will happen. As far as the crime concerns, I would take the city and downtown rates over many others - we sometimes forget that until recently Cincinnati had the crime of a much smaller town.  I also think we finally have the foundation in place to lower it over the next few years (and see with what zest the media will cover it) as the political will is there, but we will see.  I could go on a long list of all the development going on in the city, but Banks is the hot button issue so hopefully that will come to fruition soon and maybe change your outlook a little.

 

 

 

 

From: cris 3429

 

I go to Reds, and Bengals games every year.  I have been to the National Underground Freedom Center (which is another screwup, what ever happened to not having to use tax payers dollars???), I go to the Taste of Cincinnati every year, and I go to Union Terminal once every couple of months.

 

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city without taking any responsibility for the health and safety of the community. 

 

 

If you want to select that one little piece out of everything I said and then spin it to sound like that I guess that is your prerogative.  Actually, I work in the city of Cincinnati, and my income taxes do help pay for facilities and personnel in the city...so no actually your wrong.

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city and make a living without taking any responsibility for the health and safety of the community.  -- I had to continue the thought...just a little humor.

 

Hey, I say its fine to have your views, but I feel like I am listening to Bill Cunninham.  It's as if Dearborn County is some oasis, although that might be going too far.  It is important to remember that there would be no suburbs without the city and that the future of the metro will be forever linked to the future of the city.  Most people on this site understand this and are interested in a healthy future for the city - instead of running from what you consider the bad things why not think of what you could do to make it better? 

 

Believe me, many people are frustrated with the pace at which things move but at some point things will happen. As far as the crime concerns, I would take the city and downtown rates over many others - we sometimes forget that until recently Cincinnati had the crime of a much smaller town.  I also think we finally have the foundation in place to lower it over the next few years (and see with what zest the media will cover it) as the political will is there, but we will see.  I could go on a long list of all the development going on in the city, but Banks is the hot button issue so hopefully that will come to fruition soon and maybe change your outlook a little.

 

 

 

 

From: cris 3429

 

I go to Reds, and Bengals games every year.  I have been to the National Underground Freedom Center (which is another screwup, what ever happened to not having to use tax payers dollars???), I go to the Taste of Cincinnati every year, and I go to Union Terminal once every couple of months.

 

So basically what you are saying is you get to enjoy all of the amenities of a major city without taking any responsibility for the health and safety of the community. 

 

 

If you want to select that one little piece out of everything I said and then spin it to sound like that I guess that is your prerogative.  Actually, I work in the city of Cincinnati, and my income taxes do help pay for facilities and personnel in the city...so no actually your wrong.

 

I agree with you completely on everything you just said about the city.  I don't understand why people think I'm bashing the city and I hate the city, or I'm kicking it on the way out or whatever else people are saying.  I've said repeatedly in my posts that I love the city of Cincinnati.  All I've done is voiced my opinions on some of the problems I have seen with the city and it leaders.  That's all.  People in here are acting as if you can't bring up problems if you don't love the city and that just simply is not the case.  I can't wait for Cincinnati to be a vibrant city that we can all be proud of.  But we won't get there if we don't realize that there are problems and try to correct them.

Let's think about this logically and do a little role play.  I'm a robber and you're a citizen of Cincinnati out on a weeknight stroll.  Now...if handguns are illegal and I want to rob you, then I know that there is now way you have a gun hidden on you somewhere and I can come up and rob you at will.  If you decide to resist, I might just go ahead and shoot you with the gun I carry illegally, or cut you, or just beat the crap out of you.  However, if handguns are legalized and you carry a permit for that weapon, then I now have to make a decision.  Do I risk trying to rob you knowing that you could have a gun and kill me, or do I just walk the other way.  Let's say I do try to rob you.   I come up to you and demand your wallet.  You try to protect your property and your life by refusing, and you pull a gun on me.  You just saved yourself from a robbery and possible saved your life because you had the option of using that gun.  Now, I ask this question.  Both scenarios suck I know that, but I would rather have the choice of protecting myself than no chance at all.  Don't you agree.

 

Personally I'm not a big fan of the general public taking the law into their own hands.  That can get out of control VERY quickly.  If you notice, a couple of months ago one man shot an intruder/robber...then you immediately heard of another couple similar occurrences.  All of a sudden you have people thinking they can take the law into their own hands and thats even MORE dangerous in my opinion.

 

There is no perfect solution to this problem, but I don't think that allowing more people to carry guns (and guns made for killing people at that) is the right solution.  By doing that you are just increasing the odds that people use those guns...and there is then an increased possibility that they will use them inappropriately.  More violence does not fix/cure an existing problem of violence.

 

That's not taking the law into your own hands Rando...that's called self-defense, and the law allows it.  Vigilante justice or taking the law into your own hands would be like going out on your own and killing someone that did something to you or a friend or familty matter.  Or going out and trying to bring criminals into jails without actually being a member of law enforcement.  This type of justice I do not agree with at all.  However, using a gun in self-defense to protect your self and your family is something that this country needs.  You left out the part about the guy being hit in the head with a tire iron twice in the head before he shot the intruder.  Take the gun out of that man's hands, and he is now the one in the morgue instead of the robber who broke into his home.  Is that what you want?

I have been following along quietly in this discussion (and it is a good one by the way) but I am going to have to side with Cris on this one.  I am heavily involved in safety issues in what has traditionally been one of the most dangerous parts of Cincinnati, OTR, (which crime is down significantly by the way).

 

Let me give you a real life example that, in my mind, proves that if we outlaw handguns then only outlaws will have handguns.  Armed robbery, Mulberry Street, 3 months ago.  15 year old male, armed with a handgun holds up two residents at gunpoint and robs them.  The 15 year old, who should not have a handgun to begin with, let alone in public, let alone use it in a robbery, plus he had 13 prior felonies on his juvenial record.  He was not supposed to posses or use this weapon.  It was against the law.  He even stated to them that if they called the police he would return and kill them both.  The two law abiding victims in the case, although choosing not to exercise their right to conceal and carry, would have followed the law if it stated that they could not choose to defend themselves by getting a c/c license.

 

No one was more scared in the following days to return to their own home than this couple.  Would you be willing to tell them that they should not be able to defend themselves of future attacks like this by carrying a licensed handgun? If  so, I will give you their names, because they are considering it--try and talk them out of it.

I have been following along quietly in this discussion (and it is a good one by the way) but I am going to have to side with Cris on this one.  I am heavily involved in safety issues in what has traditionally been one of the most dangerous parts of Cincinnati, OTR, (which crime is down significantly by the way).

 

Let me give you a real life example that, in my mind, proves that if we outlaw handguns then only outlaws will have handguns.  Armed robbery, Mulberry Street, 3 months ago.  15 year old male, armed with a handgun holds up two residents at gunpoint and robs them.  The 15 year old, who should not have a handgun to begin with, let alone in public, let alone use it in a robbery, plus he had 13 prior felonies on his juvenial record.  He was not supposed to posses or use this weapon.  It was against the law.  He even stated to them that if they called the police he would return and kill them both.  The two law abiding victims in the case, although choosing not to exercise their right to conceal and carry, would have followed the law if it stated that they could not choose to defend themselves by getting a c/c license.

 

No one was more scared in the following days to return to their own home than this couple.  Would you be willing to tell them that they should not be able to defend themselves of future attacks like this by carrying a licensed handgun? If  so, I will give you their names, because they are considering it--try and talk them out of it.

 

Thank you for speaking up.  That is very sad what happened to that couple, and I hope that they are able to get through it and return to living a normal life.  Give them my best wishes.

I have been following along quietly in this discussion (and it is a good one by the way) but I am going to have to side with Cris on this one.  I am heavily involved in safety issues in what has traditionally been one of the most dangerous parts of Cincinnati, OTR, (which crime is down significantly by the way).

 

Let me give you a real life example that, in my mind, proves that if we outlaw handguns then only outlaws will have handguns.  Armed robbery, Mulberry Street, 3 months ago.  15 year old male, armed with a handgun holds up two residents at gunpoint and robs them.  The 15 year old, who should not have a handgun to begin with, let alone in public, let alone use it in a robbery, plus he had 13 prior felonies on his juvenial record.  He was not supposed to posses or use this weapon.  It was against the law.  He even stated to them that if they called the police he would return and kill them both.  The two law abiding victims in the case, although choosing not to exercise their right to conceal and carry, would have followed the law if it stated that they could not choose to defend themselves by getting a c/c license.

 

No one was more scared in the following days to return to their own home than this couple.  Would you be willing to tell them that they should not be able to defend themselves of future attacks like this by carrying a licensed handgun? If  so, I will give you their names, because they are considering it--try and talk them out of it.

 

Why do you think that crime is going down in OTR.  Do you have examples of what they have done in that community to bring down crime.  If you do please share them in this forum, and hopefully those same ideas and examples can be used throughout Cincinnati and that would be a huge step towards getting people back to the city.

Why do you think that crime is going down in OTR.  Do you have examples of what they have done in that community to bring down crime.  If you do please share them in this forum, and hopefully those same ideas and examples can be used throughout Cincinnati and that would be a huge step towards getting people back to the city.

 

As long as no one minds we are discussing them here and not in Cincinnati crime discussion.  But I think I can tie it into regaining population so here goes.

 

Crime is going down in OTR because of what I call a perfect storm of events.  No one event is necessarily any more important than the other.  First, District one and the Vortex Unit.  A zero tollerance policy that includes not only cracking down on crime but at the same time working with the city on code enforcement.  The sheriffs Dept patrols has served to beef up this force and while only 19 are partrolling, somehow it is hard to turn a corner and not see one.  Third, community envolvement in two ways--one through the sector groups of getting information directly to the police on a monthly basis of crime hotspots, and two, Citizens on Patrol who both serve to put an additional presence on the streets while at the same time aiding the city in quality of life and safety issues such as burned out lights, dump sites, open buildings etc.  And Fourth, and most lacking throughout our neighborhoods history is development.  We can clean up the crime for a short time but if conditions do not change we have only created a vacuum for crime to fill right back in.

 

Even with all of this, we still have a large hurtle to cross in both downtown and OTR, that is perception.  We could have crime go to zero, but unless we can convince people to revisit there city and see it with their own eyes, our growth will come, but very slowly.  OTR's one crime is equal to 10 in Hyde Park because the first thing that happens here is reinforcement to that negative perception, Hyde Park is dismissed as an anomaly.  It will be a long time before we can get to the point that we are judged the same as other communities and the reality is that some people will never be convinced because they will never give us a chance.  We have to live with this and focus on the open minded, they are the ones we want living beside us to begin with.

You left out the part about the guy being hit in the head with a tire iron twice in the head before he shot the intruder.  Take the gun out of that man's hands, and he is now the one in the morgue instead of the robber who broke into his home.  Is that what you want?

 

Obviously that is not what I want, but I also don't want it to get to the point where someone immediately turns to violence every time they feel threatened.  I'm glad that man was able to fend off his attacker and defend himself, but at the same time it disgusts me to hear examples of people shooting at other people for trespassing on their lawn/property.  This is where it can get out of hand.  Is it acceptable for someone to defend themselves when they are being attacked at all costs...YES, but by allowing this to continue on a more widespread basis you are setting a precedent that I believe can be very detrimental to society as a whole.  Is it alright for someone to shoot and kill another person because they were stealing from them...making fun of them...vandalizing their property??  The line has to be drawn somewhere...and I don't feel comfortable having people thinking that they can do as they please.

 

Why do you think that crime is going down in OTR.  Do you have examples of what they have done in that community to bring down crime.  If you do please share them in this forum, and hopefully those same ideas and examples can be used throughout Cincinnati and that would be a huge step towards getting people back to the city.

 

You need to start reading more...even your beloved Enquirer has written stories about the incredible drop-off in crime in OTR.  Look at the city's stats or whatever source you choose...they all say the same thing.  Crime has been dropping in double digit amounts in OTR for some time now.  I know its hard to accept something that is different from what has become such a 'truth' in ones mind.

examples of people shooting at other people for trespassing on their lawn/property...stealing from them...making fun of them...vandalizing their property

 

Correct me if I am wrong but this is already illegal to do unless there is an additional threat, ie. I am making fun of you while holding a knife to your throat.  I think if I shot a person while they were only keying my car, I probably would face jail time.

 

This is where it can get out of hand.

What about the inverse of this argument, where do things get out of hand to the "criminal"?  At what point do they say I can steal, rape, kill, etc without consequences (many already believe that they can avoid the police or beat it at trial and they usually are correct)?  Nothing will stop crime, but we can place deterents out there.  I know when I see someone dealing drugs on my street and I want to approach him and run him off, the first words out of my wife's mouth is "don't, he probably has a gun"  should the same thought not go through their minds before committing a crime?

I don't find the idea that concealed carry laws deter criminal activity especially convincing. Those unfortunate folks on Mulberry got held up despite those laws being on the books. That thug theoretically knew that they might have been packing, but he jacked them anyway.

 

What if they had been carrying? What happens if they pull a gun on someone who also has a gun? I'm not saying that I think CC is necessarily a bad idea, but I get the feeling that gun proponents might be watching too many action flicks.

YES, but by allowing this to continue on a more widespread basis you are setting a precedent that I believe can be very detrimental to society as a whole.  Is it alright for someone to shoot and kill another person because they were stealing from them...making fun of them...vandalizing their property??

 

The state does have a law regarding self-defense.  I'm pretty sure it clearly states when your life or someone around you is threatened at the moment.  This was covered in a women's safety seminar I took at the Police Academy last year.  I'll look for my booklet from this seminar tonight to find the exact definition. 

Killing someone because they are vandalizing or calling you names is not acceptable, and I don't think anyone is saying that it is allowed.  These cases do not fall under self-defense.

 

I don't think I'm clear what you are saying.  Let's imagine that someone breaks into my home, and this person is holding a gun.  Are you saying that I should not do anything but call the police?  It could be too late by the time they get there, and meanwhile, the gunman could move on to someone else's residence.

Remeber Cramer, I said that nothing will stop crime (and I meant to say completely) but we can deter.  Did it deter this kid, no, has it detered others, we do not know.  How many crimes have not happened? Hard to say.

 

What if they had been carrying? What happens if they pull a gun on someone who also has a gun? I'm not saying that I think CC is necessarily a bad idea, but I get the feeling that gun proponents might be watching too many action flicks.

 

Let me give another piece of info that I probably should have said above about this case.  The armed robber was walking down Rice st and passed the victims while still in there car in front of a set of steps.  One of the victims was especially concerned about this person as he walked by.  Both victims get out of the car and met face to face with the criminal at the top of the stairs, this is not where the crime occured.

 

Now a couple of things could have happened at this point.  Alarms were raised about this person, call in women's intuition.  One victim said to the criminal, you go down the steps first (being polite) the criminal said no, you go.  An armed victim at this point would have been prepared to take action if necessary, the unarmed victim is now at the mercy of the criminal.  They were half way down the steps, out of site of the street, unarmed, and one breath away from a crime ranging from a robbery, rape, or murder.

 

In many ways they were lucky that it was a robbery, but that was not there choice.  And choice is what I would like for myself and everyone else to have.  The choice to carry or not (they chose not) and the choice to defend myself or not (the first choice negated the second).  He may have reacted differently at the top of those steps and this may have been avoided had he been armed, we will never know.

 

One more analogy comes to mind.  How many people got in fights in high school?  I never did, not once.  I weighed approx 215lbs my senior year, and everyone seemed so nice.  Why?  well I was ill tempered to boot, but who in there right mind picks on the big kid?

Criminals are generally cowards and opportunist, the bullies of the neighborhood.  I would like to see that playing field evened out a bit for the little guy, give him a chance.  He will probably be picked on still, but if it is just one or two times less than he otherwise would have been, in the grown up world, this could be the difference between life and death.

^That's true, we don't know how many crimes are prevented. Now that you've said more, the lesson I think is clear. The choice is not to put yourself in a position to be a victim.

 

My point is that carrying really doesn't benefit the carrier that much. Most of the deterrent is due to the possibility of carrying, not carrying itself. Most of the rest of the deterrent, in specific cases, flows to the next guy. I'm an OTR resident and have thought about CC, but I'm not sold on the benefits. Plus, I sort of object to it on Kantian grounds. Also, I don't think that the second amendment means each citizen gets an arsenal.

 

Anyway, I think this should move to the crime discussion thread.

Anyway, I think this should move to the crime discussion thread.

 

agreed but let me throw in one more thing.  I am an advocate of choice.  And even after everything I have said and truly believe on the subject, neither my wife nor myself have chosen to have a conceal and carry(watch, now I will get robbed) and most people do not, but I support others right to do so. 

Anyway, I think this should move to the crime discussion thread.

 

agreed but let me throw in one more thing.  I am an advocate of choice.  And even after everything I have said and truly believe on the subject, neither my wife nor myself have chosen to have a conceal and carry(watch, now I will get robbed) and most people do not, but I support others right to do so.

 

and let me clarify then that I am an advocate for the greater social good.  This can be hazy at times, but I consider myself a Democrat who is not always for individual rights.  I put the society before the individual almost 100% of the time.  You can call me a 'Classical Republicanist'. :speech:

Anyway, I think this should move to the crime discussion thread.

 

agreed but let me throw in one more thing.  I am an advocate of choice.  And even after everything I have said and truly believe on the subject, neither my wife nor myself have chosen to have a conceal and carry(watch, now I will get robbed) and most people do not, but I support others right to do so.

 

and let me clarify then that I am an advocate for the greater social good.  This can be hazy at times, but I consider myself a Democrat who is not always for individual rights.  I put the society before the individual almost 100% of the time.  You can call me a 'Classical Republicanist'. :speech:

 

And I'm for freedom and the power of choice.  I do not need nor should I have to put up with the government dictating my life.  That would be called socialism.  Social good at the expense of choice or individual rights violates the very foundation that this nation was founded on. 

^Call it what you will...I just consider it to be better values/morals.  I choose not to get into flavorful name calling and generalizations, but if you wish to label me as such...I can not stop you. :|

^Call it what you will...I just consider it to be better values/morals.  I choose not to get into flavorful name calling and generalizations, but if you wish to label me as such...I can not stop you. :|

 

I don't believe I've once "flavorfully name called or generalized" on this topic.

And I'm for freedom and the power of choice.  I do not need nor should I have to put up with the government dictating my life.  That would be called socialism.  Social good at the expense of choice or individual rights violates the very foundation that this nation was founded on.

 

Huh....I guess that was a factual and accurate statement, rather than a typical generalization of what socialism is.

And I'm for freedom and the power of choice.  I do not need nor should I have to put up with the government dictating my life.  That would be called socialism.  Social good at the expense of choice or individual rights violates the very foundation that this nation was founded on.

 

Huh....I guess that was a factual and accurate statement, rather than a typical generalization of what socialism is.

 

Sorry let be a little more specific on what socialism is...you're being awfully defensive and sensitive all of a sudden.  What...did I strike a nerve or something???

 

so·cial·ism  Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.  Quoted from Dictionary.Com

 

Yep that seems to fit your community and social good ideals pretty well.  Am I wrong???

 

but I consider myself a Democrat who is not always for individual rights

And I am a Republican who is for what is right and sometimes it flows back and forth from individual to societal depending on the given topic.

 

The choice is not to put yourself in a position to be a victim.

Easier said than done sometimes, I agree with your point however, whenever possible.  Yet you asked some and they would say to not live in a "questionable" neighborhood would remove you from that positition.  So because I do not wish this to be the only option, I would also like to entertain both precautionary as well as deterrent measures.

but I consider myself a Democrat who is not always for individual rights

And I am a Republican who is for what is right and sometimes it flows back and forth from individual to societal depending on the given topic.

 

The choice is not to put yourself in a position to be a victim.

Easier said than done sometimes, I agree with your point however, whenever possible.  Yet you asked some and they would say to not live in a "questionable" neighborhood would remove you from that positition.  So because I do not wish this to be the only option, I would also like to entertain both precautionary as well as deterrent measures.

 

Very well said.  I couldn't agree more.

And I'm for freedom and the power of choice.  I do not need nor should I have to put up with the government dictating my life.  That would be called socialism.  Social good at the expense of choice or individual rights violates the very foundation that this nation was founded on.

 

Huh....I guess that was a factual and accurate statement, rather than a typical generalization of what socialism is.

 

Sorry let be a little more specific on what socialism is...you're being awfully defensive and sensitive all of a sudden.  What...did I strike a nerve or something???

 

so·cial·ism  Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.  Quoted from Dictionary.Com

 

Yep that seems to fit your community and social good ideals pretty well.  Am I wrong???

 

You did strike a nerve...I don't appreciate over-the-top commentary.  You have given one extreme example after another, made multiple incorrect statements and then you made an over-generalization.  Sure the definition is correct, but there is more to every political system that its specific definition (you should know that), but by offering the definition you are once again using another flamboyant technique to try to prove your point/disprove mine.

 

If you disagree with me (or anyone else on here...fine), but at least offer something productive to the topic instead of the constant rhetoric that you have been contributing.  Don't say crime is going up when its actually going down for example.  Get your facts straight then come and offer a level-headed response.

And I'm for freedom and the power of choice.  I do not need nor should I have to put up with the government dictating my life.  That would be called socialism.  Social good at the expense of choice or individual rights violates the very foundation that this nation was founded on.

 

Huh....I guess that was a factual and accurate statement, rather than a typical generalizatio

so·cial·ism  Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.  Quoted from Dictionary.Com

 

Yep that seems to fit your community and social good ideals pretty well.  Am I wrong???

 

I think you are wrong.  I'm impressed that you actually quoted a correct definition of socialism, but you didn't even pay attention to yourself.  Your desire to live a life undictated by the government really doesn't have anything to do with government control of the means of production.  And no serious politician or poster on this blog, least of all Uncle Rando, is advocating that the government actively run the American steel industry, auto industry, etc.  Uncle Rando is really more of a romantic, and when he speaks of the good of the community he strikes me as speaking more to an ideal community like the New England Town Meeting of myth where everyone shows up and is an engaged citizen in their community and its decisions.  It's the difference between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft.  Also your fierce desire for personal freedom of action vis-a-vis your local, state and federal governments is never going to change the fact that such corporations have always played major roles in every economy throughout history.  Just think about the ziggurats.

 

Violence is bad.  The state has a monopoly on the use of violence.  This is pretty much accepted by political theorists from the most extreme right to the most extreme left.  The current vogue for concealed carry is based on the idea that subcontracting is the most effective means of meeting market demand (and I suspect it is pushed by the gun industry in order to increase sales).  So in this case the demand for a non-violent living space would best be served by a profusion of violent weapons, either so each man may enforce the law himself, therefore applying it more quickly and efficiently than a dedicated force, or by engendering such fear of each other that everyone is scared into acting polite and civilized to one another.

 

In my experience such theories do not hold water.  It's really more inefficient for each man to act as his own policeman.  Ultimately most folks aren't up to what is required to do the job.  Also, let's not forget the mind state of the predator.  He assumes himself to be more wiley than his prey.  And it's quite possible he is.  So an armed amateur cop is not more likely to thwart a relatively professional criminal simply because he is holding a sidearm.

 

I wouldn't bother carrying a gun, or really any type of weapon in OTR.  It seems like it would be a pain anyway.  I doubt anyone on this blog would be able to effectively disarm a criminal who is holding a pistol in your face by pulling your own holstered pistol on him.  And you can't pull a gun on a guy and tell him to move away just because you think he looks sketchy without essentially becoming the criminal yourself.

 

Personally I don't care about concealed carry, and am inclined to go the way the professionals in a city's law enforcement community think best with regard to CC.  That being said, if anyone, be it OTR street thug or enraged UO blogger, tries to manhandle Cramer, then it's on.  I've had to single-handedly back up his drunk ass against some pretty pissed off Cubs fans.  And it's clear from my handle that I've been shot at.

Leave it to LK to bring up Tönnies...

 

I agree with your assesment of conceal carry. The other hassle that no one has yet mentioned is that you're prohibited from bringing a gun into any number places. That, and you're just inviting a Mexican standoff. Those rarely end well.

 

Apropos of nothing, here's an anecdote. I had to break up a knife fight the other night. Well, not so much a fight as some douchebag who pulled a knife on somebody after a fight. Though I had visions of pulling some Chuck Norris move to disarm the assailant, all I ended up doing was yelling to put the blade away. And it worked.

 

Thanks for having my back LK, whether in Wrigleyville or OTR.

I think you are wrong.  I'm impressed that you actually quoted a correct definition of socialism, but you didn't even pay attention to yourself.  Your desire to live a life undictated by the government really doesn't have anything to do with government control of the means of production.  And no serious politician or poster on this blog, least of all Uncle Rando, is advocating that the government actively run the American steel industry, auto industry, etc.  Uncle Rando is really more of a romantic, and when he speaks of the good of the community he strikes me as speaking more to an ideal community like the New England Town Meeting of myth where everyone shows up and is an engaged citizen in their community and its decisions.  It's the difference between gemeinschaft and gesellschaft.  Also your fierce desire for personal freedom of action vis-a-vis your local, state and federal governments is never going to change the fact that such corporations have always played major roles in every economy throughout history.  Just think about the ziggurats.

 

Thx for clarifying my position in a way that I was unable!  Oh, and I love the German word drops...sehr toll!

>Oh and on a side note, the federal government has a HUGE impact on crime rates.  The programs they fund and don't fund have a direct correlation to the amount of criminal activity that occurs.  Not to mention crime is very much related to economics...so the more the feds screw over the middle and lower classes = more crime. 

 

Likely 50% of crime in this country is directly related to the Federal Goverment, specifically because of the outrageous drug and alcohol laws.  In our country as a teenage male you can father dozens of children with no way to pay for them and recieve no punishment whatsoever but can't buy a damn beer.  The judicial system feeds off of addiction-prone individuals with fines and jail time and everything I've seen of rehab is a complete joke. 

 

 

>I had to break up a knife fight the other night. Well, not so much a fight as some douchebag who pulled a knife on somebody after a fight. Though I had visions

 

This past Tuesday night one of my roommates put one of his friends on the futon after getting out of hand at the bar.  The guy wakes up after an hour at about 3am and without any provocation whatsoever rips the bathroom sink off the wall, puts a large hole in the wall with his elbow, and lunges at anyone attempting to shoo him out the door.  The guy was so out of his mind he took more than 15 full-on undefended hits to the face and was still standing despite blood gushing out of his face and all over the floor. At one point he ran full-speed into the door jam. To top it off he pushes his own friend down the steps.  Then I saw him eyeing the open dishwasher so I quickly closed it to keep him away from the kitchen knives.  There was so much blood in the house that I wasn't going to touch him unless absolutely necessary because I knew it would make me look bad when the cops showed up (I also didn't take any photos because I knew they could be potentially used against us as much as in our favor).  Luckily the cops were cool, took him off to the hospital, didn't charge us with anything, and he's apparently been in the psyche ward all week.   

 

My point in telling that is it was a case where we had to defend ourselves and our property from a drugged-up maniac and we couldn't just stand by and watch him trash the place waiting for the cops to show up.  I had about $7,000 worth of camera gear just 10 feet from where this was happening.  But at the same time I'm glad nobody had a gun because you don't even want that to be an option.  Obviously if this dude had a gun we would have been in serious trouble.  However, in the city you can reasonably expect the police to show up within 20-30 minutes.  Out in the country the travel times are much longer and police staffs much smaller and so the argument for gun ownership is a lot stronger.  Also, cell phones don't usually work out there so you might not even be able to call the police in a lot of situations.     

 

And even though this whole incident was caused by a combination of alchohol and an an unidentified illegal drug (or two), far fewer crimes are commited by raging drug addicts than by those robbing, prostituting, etc., for drug money. 

 

 

 

 

 

LincolnKennedy,

In my experience such theories do not hold water.  It's really more inefficient for each man to act as his own policeman.  Ultimately most folks aren't up to what is required to do the job.  Also, let's not forget the mind state of the predator.  He assumes himself to be more wiley than his prey.  And it's quite possible he is.  So an armed amateur cop is not more likely to thwart a relatively professional criminal simply because he is holding a sidearm.

 

You are speaking of what you believe to be an average person and talking in generalities, and you may or may not be correct. Are you willing to take that chance?  Most people do not, even when given the opportunity, choose to get the c/c.  But should we all be denied the opportunity?  I can go out right now and get my c/c, and I choose not to, but should we say everyone should not have that choice.

 

 

I wouldn't bother carrying a gun, or really any type of weapon in OTR.  It seems like it would be a pain anyway.  I doubt anyone on this blog would be able to effectively disarm a criminal who is holding a pistol in your face by pulling your own holstered pistol on him.  And you can't pull a gun on a guy and tell him to move away just because you think he looks sketchy without essentially becoming the criminal yourself.

 

More power to you, neither would I.  But I am married, beautiful wife and a little dog, lola.  If a person pulled a knife, a tire iron, a broken bottle or any type of weapon, including but not limited to a gun on me, my wife (or my dog) do you not see a case where, I, as an armed resident, may be more effective in stopping the harm or death to, not only myself, but to another?  Remember, you must feel that your life or the life of another is threatened, it does not state by what, so do not always assume the criminal is carrying a gun as well.

 

Should we say, because I choose not to arm myself, and I do not think anyone else would be effective in defending themselves against an attacker, no one should?  You tell me. But what if you are wrong, even once?

 

Sorry I haven't posted recently, I've been really busy and I'm getting ready to leave for vacation, but I will repost when I get back.  I just want to leave you with one thought real quick.  Although I don't remember who said it, I will quote them properly when I have time.  "Those who are willing to give up a little liberty for a little security...deserve neither."

Well...Abraham Lincoln said "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves".  But I find it interesting that you mention your particular quote...I wonder what your feelings of the Patriot Act are??  Either way this whole conversation has gotten completely side bared.  It is meant to be discussing Cincy population trends not the pet peeves of individuals...there is a crime thread should you wish to continue this conversation.

"Those who are willing to give up a little liberty for a little security...deserve neither."

 

that quotation is meaningless.  Giving up liberty for security is the fundamental exchange that enables civilization.  Social contract theory or otherwise.