Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure where people are seeing an uptick in crime. These numbers are normal for a city the size of DC.

Be smart and be vigilant, but this is not Fairview, CT, if that's what you're looking for obviously you'll be sorely disappointed. DC is vastly safer than LA, Miami, Chicago, NY, and parts of TX.

If you feel you should be able to walk around drunk, half dressed, while wearing expensive attire, the latest phone in hand and without a care in the world to your surroundings, this is not the place for you. You'll need to move elsewhere for that. True city living is about adaptation.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

MPD has long been plagued by issues; however, they were generally effective at curbing crime until 2016.

Do not dismiss the effect on the average MPD officer of the “defund the police” movement. MPD officers watched closely as Baltimore arrested police officers (Black police officers) and put them through a criminal trial. Those officers prevailed against Baltimore’s baseless and politically-driven prosecution. They the officers sued the city. And won.

MPD officers got the message loud and clear: do not risk your job by arresting criminals.

Honestly, please explain to me why any sane MPD officer would bother arresting a dangerous or violent criminal? Risk your job over that? And for what??

On top of that, progressives continually push anti-prosecution prosecutors, who drop every case the police bring.

So again, if every one of your arrests is going to simply be dismissed by the prosecutor, why would you take the risk of arresting violent criminals?

These situations are seriously what is happening now on the streets of DC. It is not a mystery.

And criminals in DC know they will not face serious consequences.

DC is a one-party town. That party owns this town, and now they own it’s problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

MPD has long been plagued by issues; however, they were generally effective at curbing crime until 2016.

Do not dismiss the effect on the average MPD officer of the “defund the police” movement. MPD officers watched closely as Baltimore arrested police officers (Black police officers) and put them through a criminal trial. Those officers prevailed against Baltimore’s baseless and politically-driven prosecution. They the officers sued the city. And won.

MPD officers got the message loud and clear: do not risk your job by arresting criminals.

Honestly, please explain to me why any sane MPD officer would bother arresting a dangerous or violent criminal? Risk your job over that? And for what??

On top of that, progressives continually push anti-prosecution prosecutors, who drop every case the police bring.

So again, if every one of your arrests is going to simply be dismissed by the prosecutor, why would you take the risk of arresting violent criminals?

These situations are seriously what is happening now on the streets of DC. It is not a mystery.

And criminals in DC know they will not face serious consequences.

DC is a one-party town. That party owns this town, and now they own it’s problems.

So if MPD won’t do their job, maybe they should just be replaced by private security. Not sure why we are paying them if they don’t want to do their job because of hurt feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

MPD has long been plagued by issues; however, they were generally effective at curbing crime until 2016.

Do not dismiss the effect on the average MPD officer of the “defund the police” movement. MPD officers watched closely as Baltimore arrested police officers (Black police officers) and put them through a criminal trial. Those officers prevailed against Baltimore’s baseless and politically-driven prosecution. They the officers sued the city. And won.

MPD officers got the message loud and clear: do not risk your job by arresting criminals.

Honestly, please explain to me why any sane MPD officer would bother arresting a dangerous or violent criminal? Risk your job over that? And for what??

On top of that, progressives continually push anti-prosecution prosecutors, who drop every case the police bring.

So again, if every one of your arrests is going to simply be dismissed by the prosecutor, why would you take the risk of arresting violent criminals?

These situations are seriously what is happening now on the streets of DC. It is not a mystery.

And criminals in DC know they will not face serious consequences.

DC is a one-party town. That party owns this town, and now they own it’s problems.

So if MPD won’t do their job, maybe they should just be replaced by private security. Not sure why we are paying them if they don’t want to do their job because of hurt feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

MPD has long been plagued by issues; however, they were generally effective at curbing crime until 2016.

Do not dismiss the effect on the average MPD officer of the “defund the police” movement. MPD officers watched closely as Baltimore arrested police officers (Black police officers) and put them through a criminal trial. Those officers prevailed against Baltimore’s baseless and politically-driven prosecution. They the officers sued the city. And won.

MPD officers got the message loud and clear: do not risk your job by arresting criminals.

Honestly, please explain to me why any sane MPD officer would bother arresting a dangerous or violent criminal? Risk your job over that? And for what??

On top of that, progressives continually push anti-prosecution prosecutors, who drop every case the police bring.

So again, if every one of your arrests is going to simply be dismissed by the prosecutor, why would you take the risk of arresting violent criminals?

These situations are seriously what is happening now on the streets of DC. It is not a mystery.

And criminals in DC know they will not face serious consequences.

DC is a one-party town. That party owns this town, and now they own it’s problems.

So if MPD won’t do their job, maybe they should just be replaced by private security. Not sure why we are paying them if they don’t want to do their job because of hurt feelings.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

MPD has long been plagued by issues; however, they were generally effective at curbing crime until 2016.

Do not dismiss the effect on the average MPD officer of the “defund the police” movement. MPD officers watched closely as Baltimore arrested police officers (Black police officers) and put them through a criminal trial. Those officers prevailed against Baltimore’s baseless and politically-driven prosecution. They the officers sued the city. And won.

MPD officers got the message loud and clear: do not risk your job by arresting criminals.

Honestly, please explain to me why any sane MPD officer would bother arresting a dangerous or violent criminal? Risk your job over that? And for what??

On top of that, progressives continually push anti-prosecution prosecutors, who drop every case the police bring.

So again, if every one of your arrests is going to simply be dismissed by the prosecutor, why would you take the risk of arresting violent criminals?

These situations are seriously what is happening now on the streets of DC. It is not a mystery.

And criminals in DC know they will not face serious consequences.

DC is a one-party town. That party owns this town, and now they own it’s problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

MPD has long been plagued by issues; however, they were generally effective at curbing crime until 2016.

Do not dismiss the effect on the average MPD officer of the “defund the police” movement. MPD officers watched closely as Baltimore arrested police officers (Black police officers) and put them through a criminal trial. Those officers prevailed against Baltimore’s baseless and politically-driven prosecution. They the officers sued the city. And won.

MPD officers got the message loud and clear: do not risk your job by arresting criminals.

Honestly, please explain to me why any sane MPD officer would bother arresting a dangerous or violent criminal? Risk your job over that? And for what??

On top of that, progressives continually push anti-prosecution prosecutors, who drop every case the police bring.

So again, if every one of your arrests is going to simply be dismissed by the prosecutor, why would you take the risk of arresting violent criminals?

These situations are seriously what is happening now on the streets of DC. It is not a mystery.

And criminals in DC know they will not face serious consequences.

DC is a one-party town. That party owns this town, and now they own it’s problems.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident

The problem is that people looking back 30-40 years ago are using that time frame to dismiss what's happening now. "Oh, it was much worse before. Stop complaining, you transplants have no idea!" And going back that far is irrelevant because the crime is different now: different locations, different times of day, different types of crimes. How do we determine what to do about the crime NOW if we're focused on what was happening decades ago?

No one is "pretending" that crime was always as low as it was 10 years ago. But at that time, something was obviously working to keep crime low. What was it? What changed? We can't even be bothered to answer those questions because it's still not as bad as it was in the 80s, right?

I've lived here 20 years. Not sure if that qualifies me as a "long term dc resident" in your mind, though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Comparing today's crime to the crime that existed 30-40 years ago is a straw man. Those statistics are irrelevant. They simply don't matter any longer. It's much more relevant to look at crime trends over the last 10 years or so. Why? The city has changed. Society has changed. Everyday life has changed way too much.

So looking at crime trends over the last 10 years or so, no doubt things have declined. It's alarming, frankly. But nothing will be done because we can't even agree on whether it's worse than it was "before" so we keep electing politician who do absolutely nothing about it.

I don't see why 10 years is any less arbitrary than 30 or 40 years, though. Yes, society has changed. One change between 30 years ago and 20 years ago was that crime fell, significantly, in D.C., which also gained both population and wealth and income. What's the point in ignoring that?

I agree that comparisons to 30 or 40 years ago shouldn't be used to dismiss crime today, but pretending crime has always been as low as it was a decade ago and that the only relevant metric is how it's gone up since then seems sort of misguided in its own way.

Why can't we look at the whole arc and say, crime used to be even higher, it fell significantly, it is now rising rapidly again?

+1

-Long term dc area resident