Police Abuse

Cops Cite Fake Trend To Justify Treating Teens Like 'NATO Protesters'

|

The Chicago Police Department (CPD) yesterday announced that it's using anti-riot-style policing to stop a supposed criminal trend dubbed "wilding."

Police Supt. Garry McCarthy warned gravely that "kids [are] coming up and causing mayhem downtown" and that "over the weekend we had at least five or six examples of large groups of kids coming off the CTA that we escorted around basically like NATO protesters, which is the tactic that we used last year that was so effective."

That's not their only tactic, though. The situation is so serious, the law enforcement agency is also "having police prisoner vans ready and very visible in case arrests need to be made," explains one local CBS newscaster.

What the hell is wilding, you may ask. "Smashed cars, violent fights, and at times, pure chaos," another CBS newscaster claims. But, apparently, it's also teenagers blocking sidewalks, shouting mean things, and sometimes just moving in large groups.

But, let's be clear: There is actually no such thing as wilding. It didn't exist four years ago when New York Magazine swore that it's "really catching on." It didn't exist 25 years ago when cops coined the term in relation to a single, isolated incident. These are just random acts of delinquency and violence—no different than the ones for which Chicago already crafts counterproductive policies—onto which the media has latched and deemed a trend. After all, it's easy to convince people that today's youths are always getting themselves into some really crazy, dangerous shit. Remember when media outlets swore the knockout game was real? Or that the new cool teen hobby was bomb-building? Let us not even tread into the territory of beezin' and butt chugging.

Such urban legends aren't always harmless. They create undue social tension and paranoia, and people start excusing bad policies proposed to combat the problems that are either nonexistent or misunderstood. In the case of the knockout game, lawmakers across the country crafted hazy, wide-reaching legislation.

Wilding is just the flavor of the month. At best, the CPD is just talking up its own policing prowess. But, if it's not, people should recall the policies that McCarthy employed and now lauds as "so effective" during the 2012 NATO protest: a militarized riot patrol that was accused of dozens of incidents brutality. Those protesters weren't all peace signs and flower power, but there's no way to justify using the same beefed-up law enforcement strategies against the citizens of Chicago on a daily basis. As one Huffington Post writer noted at the time of the protests, when the CPD isn't under the kind of media scrutiny it saw then, it behaves even worse. What can we expect when the department, which has spent $500 million in the last decade resolving lawsuits against itself, gets the media's approval?

Advertisement

NEXT: Occidental Expels Student for Rape Under Standard So Low That the Accuser Could Have Been Found Guilty, Too

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Actually, if you look back at the past few Chicago summers, there have actually been a series of organized mob attacks on both stores and individuals, coordinated by young hoodlums who took the Red Line in from the south side.

    I understand the impulse here is to react to any increased police activity as harping on a mythical trend, but that isn’t always the case. I don’t think what CPD is necessarily going to help, but arguing that the problem is a myth when in the past few summers it has been a repeated problem is even sillier.

    1. There does seem to be contrarian bias with many writers here. Not everything is the opposite of how it appears guys.

      How about some supporting facts, Zenon?

      1. Who needs facts when you are a staff writer?

      2. Jesus Christ Tulpa, you stupid fuck.

        The sockpuppets are bad enough, but making other socks to respond to yourself is fucking pathetic.

        1. Who are you and what the fuck are you rambling about?

          1. Shut the fuck up Tulpa.

    2. Yeah same here in Long Beach. A group of reportedly 100 youths took the Blue Line to Pine Ave. downtown. They then moved en masse around downtown, verbally and physically assaulting pedestrians. They went into stores and pilfered merchandise. The police had a hard time catching up to them, but did manage to make a few arrests. But 95% of the youth were able to board another train, and away they went. The whole thing was organized via Twitter.

      1. Here is some video via YouTube.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA_P9kH-HTs

    3. Indeed. The knockout game, a.k.a. polar bear hunting, is also a real thing.

  2. OT: Putin opens a can of ActRight on Hilary Clinton. Very short article and worth it.

    http://time.com/2823238/vladim…..y-clinton/

    1. “It’s better not to argue with women,”

    2. Putin had no direct response.

      That means it’s *not* OK to have sex with him, right?

    3. Day made.

    4. Vlad Putin.. Master Troll.

  3. which has spent $500 million in the last decade resolving lawsuits against itself,

    I have seen this number before and it makes me curious as to what the CPD’s annual budget is.

    1. Google John Burge and you’ll understand (a bit) better.

      1. I read up on it the last time you posted about him. Crazy shit.

  4. Assuming that what I see filtered through the media has some basis in truth, this is kind of a new thing facilitated by social media.

    I hate to bust the cop’s chops too hard for trying to respond to this. I’m sure there are perfectly legit, peaceful groups that get thrown in with the barbarians, which sucks. This is a tough one, but that doesn’t mean the cops should just sit back and wait to mop up the blood after a mob attack. We can talk tactics, but I don’t think we should be saying this is purely mythical and we need to do nothing.

    1. This is “kinda new” as the iPhone 4.

  5. Jesus, it’s hard to tell which group is stupider, feminists or cops.

    1. Fortunately, I don’t think there are many feminist cops.

  6. “Beezin’ is when kids snort live bees. The stings get them high, and they say the buzzing in their sinuses is “radical”. Film at 11.”

  7. We already had a huge debate (was it Jesse Walker’s piece on the Central Park Jogger 5?) where i pointed out that the term ‘Wilding’ did in fact pre-date the jogger incident, that it had no connection to a Tone Loc song, and that the after-the-fact claims that the term (and by default, the ‘activity’) was “Made Up!!” in order to fully exculpate the rapists had gone a little too far in pretending that “Wilding” was entirely a media creation.

    every other decade has an upswing in urban-teen mob-activity… where sometimes, ‘roving bands of kids’ do engage in group acts of deliquency/violence/property destruction etc. I’ve seen it; i’ve been party to it. Friends have had the shit kicked out of them by a dozen 14yr olds. Still, people will go to absurd lengths to insist that “”*YES BUT!! This isn’t *Wilding*… which *everyone knows is a Made Up Thing*!””

    I’ve never understood the desperation behind insisting ‘the word’ not exist. The behavior can, has, and will sometime occur. If people want to insist we not have a word for it, then fine, but dont fucking tell me shit doesn’t happen.

    1. No one will tell the truth about the feral kids in Central Park either. I had one pop out of its hole and chuck a metal boomerang at me once but I ducked and it only hit the guy I was, uh, with…uh, at the time. They can be soothed with music boxes but you can’t ever turn your back on them.

      1. Meaning, um, what?

        1. Please tell me I don’t have to explain this to you.

          1. Thank you for the explanation. There are plenty of unfortunate gaps in my cinematic experience.

    2. Hey Gilmore, come out and plaaaayeayyyy

    3. So you’re admitting you wil’d out.

    4. I’ve never understood the desperation behind insisting ‘the word’ not exist

      It’s simple: crime trends associated with blacks justify prejudices against blacks, and so elements in the media feel compelled to argue the trends are imaginary, lest racists be proven true.

      1. They could be carefully trying to avoid a social contagion effect, but that’s probably asking too much out of the media, and almost directly opposite from their MO.

        1. I’d be more willing to consider that explanation if the mainstream media showed any evidence of being concerned about other social contagion effects, but they are noticeably choosy about that. Their MO is now nearly totally left/PC.

    5. We already had a huge debate (was it Jesse Walker’s piece on the Central Park Jogger 5?) where i pointed out that the term ‘Wilding’ did in fact pre-date the jogger incident, that it had no connection to a Tone Loc song

      It was under my blog post (not sure it rises to the level of a “piece”), yeah. You convinced me that the Tone Loc story was false, and I updated the post to say that; I wasn’t sold on some of the other things you wrote. Maybe because, underneath it all, we were arguing about different things:

      and that the after-the-fact claims that the term (and by default, the ‘activity’) was “Made Up!!” in order to fully exculpate the rapists had gone a little too far in pretending that “Wilding” was entirely a media creation.

      As far as I was concerned, the point was that there wasn’t a “trend” called “wilding.” There were kids who did thuggish things, as some always will when given the opportunity, and there were reporters who pinned a dumb-sounding word on it and acted like this was a new (or newly popular) development.

      I feel the same way about “the Knockout Game.” Some idiots decided to document their street crimes on YouTube, so the press acted like someone just invented violence. No one demonstrated that random attacks were actually getting more common. And at least some of the crimes that got shoved under the label did not actually appear to be part of a “game.”

      1. Sorry, no, the press didn’t act as if idiot street thugs “invented violence.” And the whole point is that these are not “random attacks”: with few exceptions, they are blacks attacking whites (and sometimes Hispanics), not to rob but simply to injure and kill. It’s the random, black-on-white, not-for-robbery aspects that makes it both newsworthy and politically radioactive. (Apparently so politically radioactive that even normally sensible Reason writers have a hard time seeing it for what it is.)

        As for it being a “trend,” it depends on your timeframe. I guarantee you that there were few incidents of blacks attacking random whites on the streets 50 years ago, simply to commit assault and not as part of a mugging. And there were very few instances of roving mobs of blacks looting stores and so on. When it did happen, it was called a “riot.”

        I also object to what seems to be an attitude of “it’s not a trend, it’s happened before, nothing to see here.” Somehow, this attitude does not apply to (say) police brutality, government overspending, eminent domain abuses, or military adventurism, when those topics are discussed around here.

        1. “with few exceptions, they are blacks attacking whites (and sometimes Hispanics), not to rob but simply to injure and kill. It’s the random, black-on-white, not-for-robbery aspects that makes it both newsworthy and politically radioactive”

          This is what freaked people out in the late 80s as well. High crime was less of an issue by itself when it was just criminals shooting criminals in cracked out areas, car windows smashed, etc.. even apartment robbery was considered ‘normal’ if you didn’t live in a doorman building.

          but when people started getting randomly attacked in central park? Yes, there was a citywide panic about it. And it predated the ‘jogger’. My concern that the thing not be written off as a historical ‘hoax’ or fake-panic is that in reality, there WAS some serious underlying hate-crime and violent-tension going on all through the 1980s in NYC. It wasn’t a fiction by any stretch. It was ‘a trend’, if not exactly an organized sporting event.

          Probably the most remarkable thing is how it vanished almost completely over the following decade.

          re: the knockout game – i keep forgetting what they called it in England when they had it there. It was a new and popular development at the time!

          1. but when people started getting randomly attacked in central park? Yes, there was a citywide panic about it. And it predated the ‘jogger’. My concern that the thing not be written off as a historical ‘hoax’ or fake-panic is that in reality, there WAS some serious underlying hate-crime and violent-tension going on all through the 1980s in NYC. It wasn’t a fiction by any stretch. It was ‘a trend’, if not exactly an organized sporting event.

            But this is so much more specific than the media narrative I’m criticizing. If you tell me New York had a crime problem in the Dinkins years, I’ll agree. If you tell me Central Park became more dangerous in that period?well, I don’t know the relevant stats, but that certainly sounds plausible. The boundaries of what parts of town are pretty safe and what parts aren’t can certainly change over time. If Central Park moved from category A to category B, that’s obviously cause for concern.

            But speaking as someone who didn’t live anywhere near New York when all this went down: People thought there was a national trend of kids going “wilding.” It was the subject of chin-stroking editorials on The Youth Of Today. The word was applied to crimes across the country that seemed to resemble the Central Park assault, and for that matter crimes that didn’t.

            (Btw, the British counterpart was called “happy slapping.”)

        2. the whole point is that these are not “random attacks”: with few exceptions, they are blacks attacking whites (and sometimes Hispanics), not to rob but simply to injure and kill.

          Actually, I’ve seen stories where the victim of the alleged knockout attack is black. But it’s hard to nail down what qualifies as a knockout story and what doesn’t anyway, since so many reports are framed as Could this be another example of the Knockout Game?, where any random assault (or non-assault) gets hyped as part of the alleged trend even if it doesn’t fit the stereotypical knockout scenario.

          It’s the random, black-on-white, not-for-robbery aspects that makes it both newsworthy and politically radioactive.

          Wait, so they’re random after all?

          As for it being a “trend,” it depends on your timeframe.

          No, it depends on whether the media’s attention tracks the actual frequency of the crime. See my original post (linked in my earlier comment).

          1. I guarantee you that there were few incidents of blacks attacking random whites on the streets 50 years ago, simply to commit assault and not as part of a mugging.

            And I guarantee you that there were plenty of knockout-style rumors that they were doing just that. As for whether it’s actually more common now than then: I suspect not, since violent crime itself is so much lower, but if you can show me statistics on this specific form of crime that say otherwise I’ll grant you the point.

            And there were very few instances of roving mobs of blacks looting stores and so on. When it did happen, it was called a “riot.”

            That’s one of the things it gets called now too. (But I do agree that you didn’t have anything like that organized on social media in the old days, since social media did not exist.)

            I also object to what seems to be an attitude of “it’s not a trend, it’s happened before, nothing to see here.” Somehow, this attitude does not apply to (say) police brutality, government overspending, eminent domain abuses, or military adventurism, when those topics are discussed around here.

            Who said there’s nothing to see here? Street crime is a legitimate social problem whether it’s rising or falling. But if the media are exaggerating how common something is?as they do with, say, mass shootings?then that too is a legitimate thing to criticize.

            1. You, Zenon, and I agree on three facts and a logical inference:

              F1: Attacks by roving bands of Negro youths have occurred with significant frequency for a long time.

              F2: National media reports have increased about tenfold in the last few years.

              F3: The media describes ABRBONY as a trend.

              LI: Except in maybe the narrowest technical sense, the media is wrong that it’s a trend.

              Of course we differ about the lesson here.

            2. As for whether it’s actually more common now than then: I suspect not, since violent crime itself is so much lower,

              Wait what. Assault rates are at least twice as high as 1964.

          2. Wait, so they’re random after all?

            “Random” in the sense of picking a likely white victim, not because of a provocation, or because robbery was the motive. “Random” in the sense that a single white person walking in the city could think: “I could be the next victim.”

      2. “the point was that there wasn’t a “trend” called “wilding.”

        If you mean there was no ‘common, random acts of violence perpetrated by minority teens against strangers’, then i’d completely disagree.

        If you said, OK, the random violence occurred, but* NO ONE called it “wilding” (‘Wil’in, wil’in out, etc), I’d still disagree.

        If you said, there was random violence, sure, and it was increasingly common = BUT the broader public had no name for it, and the media latched onto this fairly vague slang term for ‘general juvenile delinquency and low-level criminality’.. then yes. In that sense the word got ‘grabbed’ and turned into a Media Created concept.

        Did the media storm create an entirely false impression of how things really were in the city? Not really.

        The fact it got associated with kids who were framed with Gang Rape seems to be to be the root of its alleged “falsehood”.

        Even if you take the gang rape that never happened out – what the Central Park 5 were doing that night is probably *aptly described* as ‘wilding’. It certainly wasn’t pre-planned robbery. They were randomly assaulting people.

        i don’t disagree at all with how the media creates panics by labeling ‘everything’ some kind of predatory racist violence in effort to perpetuate a narrative.

  8. GET OFF MY LAWN!

  9. Knockout game: So, in my town in 2009 (I think), on dozens of occasions, roving gangs beat the fuck out of a chosen individual on a popular commercial street. City officials did their best to cover it up. The trend reoccurs later. On at least one occasion, the police denied it was part of the “knockout game” because that game involves trying to knock out the victim with one punch while the victim in the present case was hit multiple times before being knocked out. Technically correct… the best kind.

    1. I’m calling BS on this article saying the “knockout game” is made up. There are hundreds of examples, including many on video. Is Reason going PC on this because it points to black on white violence?

      1. I rather think it’s adherence to the principle that police are always venal lying wannabee tyrants. I would replace “always” with “most of the time”, but the cops might be right about this phenomenon, whatever you want to call it.

    2. This happened to a friend of mine last year. In Chicago.

  10. that game involves trying to knock out the victim with one punch while the victim in the present case was hit multiple times before being knocked out

    Just because you didn’t win the game, doesn’t mean you didn’t play the game.

  11. We need to build a wall 700 feet tall on this side of Chicago to keep the wildings north of it.

    1. I think this is your best cunning plan yet.

    2. Is Ygritte one of the wildings?

      Please say yes.

      1. You know nothing, Andrew Snow.

  12. “It didn’t exist 25 years ago when cops coined the term in relation to a single, isolated incident.”

    As noted the last time someone made this claim = the term was in use prior to 1989; in a few rap albums at least. NYC cops are/were not that clever.

    Also, the fact that roaming bands of kids would beat the shit out of you in central park on summer nights was in fact ‘a thing’, terminology be damned. Cops didn’t invent that either.

    1. Yeah, terms aside, the idea that a roving group of toughs, beating up strangers as they move down the street is not beyond human comprehension.

      And if it is, then please explain the Green Street Hooligans.

      1. The problem is, this behavior goes back before a New York Times reporter could “discover” it. Therefore, every time it happens is a new discovery.

    2. As noted the last time someone made this claim = the term was in use prior to 1989; in a few rap albums at least. NYC cops are/were not that clever.

      Meh, I remember looking into this and I found a couple of things.

      The term really wasn’t in use. You’re wrong. Utterly and irrefutably.

      The WORD had been used a couple of times as a conjugate, but it meant entirely different things, and was in no way related to the way it was used by the cops, based on their misunderstandings.

      I don’t know why you keep banging this drum so hard, but you’re making an ass of yourself by repeating your objections, which are wrong and poorly founded.

      1. I’m ‘wrong’ because, what? You Googled it?

        Last year in LA they had some rioting and the term came up again…

        ..in the comments here =

        http://laist.com/2013/07/22/la…..otests.php

        A woman reiterates what i said last time this came up =

        “tiffanybbrown ? 11 months ago

        “Wilding” might sound more familiar as “wil’in'” — only whack-ass grownups ever pronounced the D. Remember the title of that Nick Cannon show “Wild ‘N Out”?

        “Wilding” is not a word that literally means “to maraud and harass innocents.” It’s basically the late ’80s version of “turned up” / “turnt up” — could have a negative, violent connotation or a happy, fun one depending on whether you’re describing a fight or a party.

        The word reached national prominence with the Central Park jogger case, but it was actually used as slang in NYC (and its adjacent suburbs) for a year or so before that case and at least a decade after it.** But y’know, racist, classist, and out of touch NYPD cops are racist, classist, and out of touch, so they never picked up on the fact that these kids were using the slang of their day. Racist, classist and out of touch media then and now continue to report it that way. I mean we understand that “going wild” does not mean “raping people,” right? ….”

        the term was commonly used to describe ‘going out with friends and causing trouble’.

        what were you saying again?

        1. I’m ‘wrong’ because, what? You Googled it?

          No, because you’re apparently too fucking stupid and blinkered to understand you have your facts wrong.

          what were you saying again?

          That you’re wrong and an idiot. Nothing your imbecile ass has posted changes that in any way fuckwit.

          A woman reiterates what i said last time this came up =

          the term was commonly used to describe ‘going out with friends and causing trouble’.

          And both you and the idiot woman are wrong.

          Now die in a greasefire you retard.

          1. I mean, your moron ass is so fucking stupid, that you think you can post a quote, to a commenter as evidence and expect me to do anything other than question how you use a computer being that stupid?

            What kind of fucking brain damaged dullard does that? Other than you I mean?

            YOU” “HEY LOOK THIS LADY SAID IT IT WAS TOTALLY A FUCKING TREND A FUCKING COMMENTER SAID IT!!!!111!11!!ONE1111ELEVEN

            And you’re serious. You serious expect us not to laugh at you.

            1. Get help, kid.

        2. I think I may have said this before–

          Having been in that demographic of teens wandering parks at night in NYC and occasionally getting into…..mischief….I can say, from experience that the term ‘wilding’ came from the papers.

          We never had a name for it. You just went and hung out with your friends. What happened happened. No one left the house to go ‘wilding’ or wil’in’ or anything like that. Sorry.

          But please bear in mind that I’m only talking about us, and the term and what we said–what cops and other people might call it, well, that’s on them.

          I don’t recall ever hanging out with a ‘Tiffany Brown’, but maybe some people she knew said it.

  13. You all know what’s next… ultra-violence

  14. So the only evidence the “knock-out game” is bogus was a link to Fox News saying the trend is real.

    Because, you know, “Faux” News haha, nuff said.
    Have to do better than that here.

    1. The search engine is a modern tool that can really expand your understanding.

      1. Well, that was, um, awkward.

        1. I hope it’s clear I’m criticizing the claim that the knock-out game is a myth. And the hyperlink provided was to Fox News reporting on the knock-out game as real, which I believe it is. As if the fact it’s Fox news means it must be an agenda driven myth. Which I do not assume. Hope I’ve overexplained that sufficiently.

          1. Fuck you Tulpa.

            1. I have always and only posted under this particular palindrome.

              1. Fuck off Tulpa.

  15. Wilding: What Montreal and Vancouver hockey fans do after winning a lousy hockey series.

  16. Oh yeah, Zenon? That ‘single, isolated incident‘?

    There was in fact *more than one rape* in the park the night the “central park 5” got busted. The guys that got framed for the ‘gang rape’ were actually witnesses to one of them (not the one they were later charged with)

    AND of course a number of assaults. Some of which they copped to.

    And that was just one night.

    So “isolated incident” my ass. in 1989 there were 1800 murders and over 5000 rape incidents in NYC. Compare that to ~400 murders citywide in 2012.

    And central park was probably one of the most dangerous places in the city to be after dark. According to this, ‘felonies in Central Park…[were] averaging close to nine hundred a year from 1979 to 1986.’

    I get pissed off when people try and tell me “things were exaggerated”, or that the Central Park jogger was a @*#$&@( ‘isolated incident’. Because stuff like that never happens MEDIA HYPE

    1. Few people realize your actual name is Paul Kersey, GILMORE, but I figured it out.

      1. Meaning, um, what

        1. meaning he thinks i’m still living out this fantasy endlessly since I’ve lived in NYC my whole life and am bored now that crime is basically zilch. Even WITH the current punk-kid-muggings. (amateurs!)

          1. Ah, I’ve been told that movie is worth watching. Was it made pre- or post- Bernhard Goetz’s exploits?

            1. Pre Bernie Goetz, by 10 years. Death Wish 3,4, and 5 are post-Goetz.

            2. It’s pre-Goetz, and it’s not squishy about its pro-vigilantism slant. Charles Bronson kills aggressors dead. Damn good movie. The second is OK. Then they start going downhill.

              “Here’s Charles Bronson in Death Wish 9!”

              (from hospital bed)

              “Oy, I…wish I was dead.”

              1. My favorite Bernard Goetz detail is how he now rescues and tends to injured squirrels

                1. I used to know a woman who knew Goetz before the incident. She said he was a nice guy and totally sympathized with him.

          2. since I’ve lived in NYC my whole life

            You should emigrate to America, where muggers often end up with a couple very-civilizing holes in them.

            1. I have heard of this land… where the streets are paved with gold!

              1. You’re an imbecile.

                1. Oh no, have you uncovered yet another Tulpa sockpuppet? They’re around every corner it seems!

              2. gold my ass, they’re paved with high capacity magazines.

      2. I lived as a toddler not far from the setting for Death Wish 1. 79th and riverside drive. of course I didn’t see the movie until the 80s.

        I think of my own new york as more ‘wild style’-era. SON OF DEATH WISH I’ll accept.

        1. That’s what you get for living on the UWS. And so did Kersey! UES is much better!

          The city was pretty calm for me from 95-02. I even went through Central Park at night a few times. Of course, I was armed (illegally) so I wasn’t overly worried.

          1. Everything started to get ‘safe’ by 1997. (when i moved back after college)

            The drop 1990-1996 was ridiculous

            http://www.newyorkfed.org/rese…..aucht4.gif

            I’ve read both the ‘freakonomics’ and ‘tipping point’ theories of why crime dropped so fast in those years, but none have entirely convinced me. (the most compelling, imo, is not the ‘abortion’ theory, but that “Crack destroyed itself” – dealers and users got old, dead, or jailed)

            My person feeling is that its a generational trend. Crime itself just got old and unfashionable

            1. I’m younger than you, GILMORE, and grew up in the burbs, but I remember huge differences around the same period. I would never have guessed, in 1994-5, say, that in 1999 I’d be going around on the subway on my own just doing my thang as a teen. I don’t have a theory, myself, other than fuck Giuliani (just my general theory for the period).

            2. The tech and dot-com boom just firehosed money and therefore gentrification into Manhattan at least. I remember Brooklyn still being pretty sketchy in parts (I had to pick up my city-towed car–I owed over $1000 in parking tickets, natch–in Bed-Stuy one time and that had me on edge), but when you could go down to Alphabet City at night and not be overly worried you knew things were changing.

              Basically, if you knew what you were doing it was pretty safe.

              1. Nah, the trend happened all over the USA simultaneously, but not Canada or Mexico.
                What I find more interesting is comparing across State lines where they ran similar stats beforehand, but diverged after.

                1. “LiveFreeOrDiet|6.4.14 @ 8:35PM|#

                  Nah, the trend happened all over the USA simultaneously,”

                  Go look at that chart again.

                  ‘Directionally’, yes. The Level? not so much.

                  1. Oh, I agree the degree of downward change differed, whether looked at by percentage, or number of incidents, or number of victims, etc. But I said simultaneous, meaning they are concurrent, not identical. It’s also why I mentioned before and after tracking changes.

    2. If you don’t count the murders, their crime rate is comparable with DC or Chicago.

    3. Ok, I get it now, Gilmore is a fucking mental patient.

      You should have to wear a label you fucking retard.

      1. Shut up Tulpa and post with your real name.

  17. I think the real problem is the media scare mongering in order to make this more of a real thing than it really is.

    Much like the media’s duplicity in mass shootings, and other depraved shit.

    When ever they get their fingers out to point at “what caused ____”, they never include their own part in the problem.

  18. Because kids don’t do stuff Like This

    “Four teens and a 12-year-old were busted Monday after mugging three people in Central Park, police said.

    Police said the boys first struck about 5:15 a.m., confronting a 31-year-old man jogging in the park on the Fifth Ave. side near E. 95th St.

    The youths, one wielding a small wooden bat, demanded the man’s money, cops said. When the victim resisted, one boy punched him in the face and then took off with the rest of the group, police said.

    A short time later, the gang mugged two women ages 48 and 46, near the reservoir, police said.”

    Its so ‘isolated’, we’re totally used to it!

    1. You’re still wrong and an idiot.

      Anything else.

  19. These are just random acts of delinquency and violence

    Right. There’s nothing predictable about these attacks — totally random.

  20. You never know when those Chicago kids might riot, to get some breathing room from tyranny, so they sign the Declaration of Independence.

  21. I’d strongly sugest Zenon Evans stays the fuck out of Chicago. I seriously doubt anyone that naive would last a day here.

  22. Side note =

    “NATO protesters”

    uh.What?

    Does ‘afficer McCarthy mean, ‘WTO’ protesters? Who the fuck protests ‘NATO’?

    This sounds like something confused old people say = “They were protesting the NATO! and the rapper waved his Walkman at me! I saw a white boy with dreadlocks! what is the world coming to.”

  23. Trying to think of the last time I saw a rampaging flash mob here. Can’t think of any. Wonder what explains that?

    1. A hole or two has a remarkably civilizing effect.

  24. Garry is also very worried about the kids abusing jenkem.

  25. Oh no, media are making up stories again:

    http://screen.yahoo.com/police…..00612.html

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.