Be Cautious on the Lakefront Path by Belmont: Crime Targeting Cyclists
Has anyone heard about this?
A robbery crew targeted people along the Lakefront Path near Belmont Harbor yesterday afternoon—repeatedly tossing bikes in front of oncoming bicyclists in an effort to knock people down so they could be robbed according to multiple witnesses and one known victim.
Reports started coming in shortly before 2PM from people along the bike path between Belmont and the landmark totem pole, according to police. All of the reports said that two men on bikes and one man on foot were trying to steal bikes and other property after knocking people down along the lakefront.
Police were unable to locate the offenders, but one man later showed up at Illinois Masonic Medical Center for treatment of injuries that he suffered in an attack at the north end of Belmont Harbor. Officers have categorized the incident as an armed robbery—with the weapon being a bicycle.
Full story:
http://www.cwbchicago.com/2016/06/robbery-crew-targeted-bicyclists-...
Views: 2615
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Cooper Hofstad on
-
Bike area? Or bikeable area?
-
Permalink Reply by curt(is) locke on
-
"Thugs" and "animals"?? You're using code now. Mister Fist, this your first comments on the Chainlink?
-
Permalink Reply by V W on
-
I don't disagree that those terms can be and often are code. But apart from those connotations it's not like there isn't such a thing as "bad element", "riff raff", "ruffians", whatever you want to call them, and I've certainly seen them in that area (in all colors). A fact doesn't cease to be a fact just because there's also issues of cultural and society sensitivity at play. Sometimes a spade is as a spade and should be able to be called the same.
-
-
Or you could call a spade a shovel (vs. a gorilla in the mist.) Now how 'bout calling a troll a troll? Mr. Fist??
No one has even suggested that "there isn't such a thing as 'bad element.'" In fact, the criminal behavior reported above is that of flat out predatory thugs. But the additional use of "animals" insures the reader understands the intended "racial profile."
-
Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on
-
Sorry Curtis, I read it and am also troubled by the choice of words. I do think we need to be more mindful about word choice and potential labels. They are meaningful. I'm also troubled by the constant reference of "bad neighborhoods" vs. "good neighborhoods". Not only is it inaccurate, it also correlates with race and that's not acceptable.
So, what do you recommend we do? I can go in and edit comments like these, reaching out to the person that posted. I can delete the full post. Or I can let Chainlinkers respond. I've removed offending words in the past, reached out to the poster and faced some backlash for being overly involved so I've been trying to step back and let people respond. I am open to suggestions.
-
-
Personally, I agree with your stepping back and allowing the community to respond. Now, if such a discussions devolves into a flame war, then moderator intervention is completely appropriate. I respect your thoughtfulness in these matters. Yours can be a rather thankless job.
-
-
I'm glad that you let discussions happen. Some forums are a little too stuffy when it comes to that kind of thing.
I didn't realize "bad neighborhood" is also taboo now. To me it's a colloquialism that means a neighbourhood with relatively higher rates of crime, and typically also more litter, more shuttered homes and businesses, lower tax base.
Those do exist don't they? So why is it not OK to have a word to describe them?
-
-
You clearly possess a robust vocabulary. There are plenty of words to use, many that are more specific, descriptive, and accurate than the simple broad judgement statement of "bad." Who lives in "bad" neighborhoods? Bad people, of course. And they do. But bad people live in "good" neighborhoods too. But good people who live in "good" neighborhoods are not stigmatized in the way that good people who live in "bad" neighborhoods are.
-
-
I'm not trying to get into a snark battle I'm honestly asking what is the current accepted term or phrase. If "bad neighborhood" is now like saying "oriental" or "handicapped", or "midget" or "retard"- then surely there's some appropriate term that has replaced it, as there is in all of those examples.
I'm looking for a shorthand term so I don't have to say two sentences every time I want to say "bad neighborhood". -
-
-
Thank Curtis, well said.
VW, here's the thing -
Do people label a neighborhood as "bad" because they researched crime statistics? Not likely. Usually when someone considers a neighborhood "bad" it is race-related and/or in a certain part of the city and based on a superficial assessment of what is perceived to be "bad" and less safe. Frankly, it's racist to assume a particular area is "bad" due to the race of the people that live there.
Why do you need a shorthand term? Why do you need to label parts of the city?
Having lived in Chicago for many years, I've seen very hip and trendy parts of the city have issues with high crime rates. I've also taken my bike safely through neighborhoods that have been described as "bad" and had a very different experience - women and children cheering us on while we rode by, cars giving us ample space. I've had the misfortune of riding North on Clark after a game and had drunk idiots jump into the bike lane as a "joke". 99% of the time, I avoid Clark and the surrounding area around Wrigley because it's pretty awful.
I think Curtis said it best - if you label a neighborhood with a word like bad, realize that you are calling the residents of that neighborhood bad. And that's not good.
-
-
-
Why does anyone need any words? To describe things. Of course it's wrong to use words as code to denote some racist connotations. But notice how "midget" becomes "vertically challenged" which becomes "short person" or whatever. The concept never entirely goes away because of the basic non malicious need to describe what you want to describe. It's great to fight negativity and make people conscious of the hurtful nature of some words, people shouldn't be reckless with labels, and it's good that public awareness is raised to make things taboo that should be taboo. But there comes a point to where you're playing semantic musical chairs to keep up with the non malicious word you're looking for to describe any particular thing.
As far as "bad neighborhood", my most common use of that term is probably to describe the neighborhoods I grew up in. It's a lot easier for me to say that and have a person know what I mean then to describe every aspect. Now if someone called the neighborhoods I grew up in bad and it was obvious that they meant it in a racial way I would be of course offended. Otherwise I wouldn't be because I know they mean "violence/theft/graffiti/broken homes ".
On some level you throw the baby out with the bathwater when you have to dance around certain words and say a mouthful because those words might be taken in the wrong way. I think context should matter more than the word itself.
And I don't see why we can't label parts of the city as long as we aren't reckless about it. It's naïve to pretend that this extremely stratified and culturally diverse city with all these very different neighborhoods is uniform and homogenous.
-
Permalink Reply by Tony Adams on
-
One term I've heard used which is entirely accurate and reflects the cause (or at least a primary cause) of neighborhood deterioration is "under-resourced". It is a bit of a mouthful, especially compared to "bad", but at least it does not blame the victims.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Next ›
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Wednesday Night for Mort…
1 member
-
Great Lakes Ultra Cycling
270 members
-
Major Taylor Internation…
1 member
-
Critical Mass discussion
261 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
