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: 2619

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by V W on June 8, 2016 at 1:46am
I like "under- resourced", thanks!
Permalink Reply by Paul Fitz, Scrabblor on June 7, 2016 at 6:48pm

"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."

Labelling a whole neighborhood or part of the city is reckless.  Don't presume you have the ability or authority to label anything good or bad without being called out.  If you actually have knowledge about crime happening in a particular stretch of a street you could say as much ("there's drug traffic I avoid at x street and x avenue", "there's a long stretch of street with no stop lights that people drive aggressively on"), but it doesn't sound like you actually know anything when you say a neighborhood is good or bad.  It just sounds like you are judging based on your prejudices. 

Permalink Reply by V W on June 8, 2016 at 1:38am
I think there's a point where well meaning efforts to steer clear of stigmatizing a neighbourhood or its people spills over into ignoring the problem. If you can't acknowledge a neighbourhood is "bad" because you're afraid of offending someone or you are reticent to contribute to reinforcement of the neighborhood's reputation - does that really make the neighborhood "good", or does it tend to make people ignore the issues that make it "bad" altogether? I get that you're saying "bad" is an oversimplification which can be used in a pejorative way against the residents, but I don't think it can only be used in that way. There are many "under resourced" neighborhoods which share common features of low investment in infrastructure, high crime, food deserts, etc- these neighborhoods need some love but it's as if we can't even acknowledge this common pattern because policing the choice of words is more important than discussion of the issues themselves.

Keep in mind that various economic development groups doing what they can to identify and focus on communities in need. Are they reckless for labeling those communities in any way?
Permalink Reply by Paul Fitz, Scrabblor on June 8, 2016 at 2:08am

"These neighborhoods" don't need love they need resources.   Love conquers all, but oppression isn't the same as non-love.  

I'm just trying to give a friendly suggestion that you should watch your language when talking about where people live.  Take it or don't, but please do not compare yourself to someone working on economic development and next time site the neighborhoods or groups you're wishing to malign.  

Permalink Reply by V W on June 8, 2016 at 2:45am
I appreciate the suggestion but if I say "under resourced" instead of "bad", isn't that a label too? Or will that be OK for the next decade until it too becomes taboo?

And where am I maligning any neighborhood or group? If a neighbourhood is under resourced, crime ridden, etc, and I express that, it's a factual statement. Point being, we should be careful not to chill non malicious speech in our effort to filter out bad speech.
Permalink Reply by Yasmeen on June 8, 2016 at 2:27am

I think it's an overly easy one-word answer to a much more complicated problem and you prove that by defining what you mean by saying "bad". Other people may have a different, less nuanced definition of bad and that is what is most concerning. When people label a neighborhood as "bad" to warn themselves and others to avoid it, this doesn't help the community. All communities can and need to benefit from the services and opportunities e.g. Divvy, bike lanes, regular bus and el service, quality education, access to fresh produce, and the list goes on and on. I find it especially tragic to know there are neighborhoods where people pay the same taxes, contribute to the city and are left without services, essentially paying for the other neighborhoods to have what they don't. Some time back I used to do the volunteer day where they'd load up buses and have people spend a Saturday with a particular task e.g. painting a school. All of these schools are not created equally - many have temporary structures that are long past their temporary life with no plan to replace the buildings. And this is where children go to school. I think 'under-resourced' is a gentle way to say that there are neighborhoods that are completely lacking in resources and funding. 

I watched that new Michael Moore movie recently, Where to Invade Next and there was a particular segment that really opened my eyes - all children in France receive the same high quality, nutritious lunches because all children deserve to experience good food including cheese and dessert (not chips and soda). It reminded me of the nonsense some lawmakers add to regulate food stamps e.g. in Wisconsin, you are not allowed to buy organic food with stamps. I love that France gets this - all children deserve high quality food. We need to change the way we think about these programs. I could go on e.g. corporations, tax shelters for the rich, etc. I think summing up a neighborhood/community in one word is not helpful.

Permalink Reply by V W on June 8, 2016 at 2:50am
Well if you think this two word summation is better, I'll use "under resourced." I think that works.
Permalink Reply by Jeremy on June 8, 2016 at 5:15am

Saying a neighborhood is "bad" is just a simplification for the thoughts you wish to express.  By labeling an entire neighborhood "bad", you are implying everything associated with that neighborhood is bad, when that is likely not your intent.

However, one could then say your argument is "lazy", which I am sure you wouldn't appreciate.  You would probably defend yourself with reasons why it was necessary for you to make such a generalized statement, and how labeling you with a one word characterization is unfair and a simplification of the issue.

Permalink Reply by Maurice on June 8, 2016 at 6:31am

The city obviously has some bad neighborhoods featuring extreme violence, absolutely horrible schools, very few businesses, etc.  My issue is that the term is grossly overused to encompass any neighborhood with black residents. 

Permalink Reply by David P. on June 8, 2016 at 11:19am

"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."

How does one arrive at that as a necessary conclusion from the statement made? I think that is a bridge too far, to put it mildly. In no way does calling a neighborhood "bad" inherently implicate everyone who lives in it. If I am in Detroit (I choose it for familiarity) something bad can happen to me in Grandmont-Rosedale, and something bad could also happen to me at 6 Mile and Gratiot, but I know which one of those two is a bad neighborhood and so does everybody else, including the people who live in them.

Permalink Reply by V W on June 8, 2016 at 12:11pm
That's exactly what I was getting at. If a word can have a negative connotation but also a nonpartisan descriptive use- why should we steer clear of the word entirely? Because we don't trust people to grasp the nuance and differentiate between the two meanings? If a word can be misused or over used then that implies there's also an appropriate use!
Permalink Reply by Yolo Perdiem on June 9, 2016 at 8:36am

If a word can have a negative connotation but also a nonpartisan descriptive use- why should we steer clear of the word entirely? Because we don't trust people to grasp the nuance and differentiate between the two meanings?

In part because in a text-based, asynchronous communication medium there is not enough context to understand author's intent.  Both ways.

RSS

Groups

© 2008-2016   The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.   Powered by

Disclaimer  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service