Crime In Downtown

[Gthenewsgirl]

Wondering about whether the Runnels Street tracks near the lofts are really designated quiet zones. I saw threads on here from 2009 but wonder if the situation has gotten better. Any help/info would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!!

Really? No one? Anyone? Bueller...Bueller...Anyone? Anyone?

[LTAWACS]

Sounds good to me.

[brian0123]

Not sure why everyone freaks out about "big gubmant" cameras in public spaces. London has them everywhere and it never bothered me. It actually made me feel happy knowing that if I were mugged, they'd have a nice clear picture of the assailant. I think this program is excellent news and I'd love to see it expanded into my neighborhood. Why should we pay a ton of $$ for extra police to randomly patrol streets when we can have an entire area monitored by less staff... and dispatch officers to crimes in progress?

[editor]

About two years ago the mayor of Chicago bragged about having 3,000 police cameras installed around the city, and plans to double that number within two years.

Shortly after that, Chicago went through a crime wave. So far this year there have been over 400 murders in that city. Cameras won't bring those people back to life.

Would crime have been worse if the cameras weren't there? No one can really say.

Would crime have been reduced if the millions spent on the new OEMC was spent on beat cops? No one can really say.

I like the idea of fighting crime with technology, but I'm not yet convinced that it works in this form.

When NBC News asked Chicago for examples of how the cameras had prevented crime, the best thing the city offered a videotape of a police camera watching a burglar crawling into a person's window who was arrested a short time later.

It should be noted that there have been cases of camera operators being disciplined for looking in people's windows watching things they shouldn't. As long as there are people running the cameras, they will (through malice, carelessness, poor training, or pure voyeurism) be used for purposes they were not intended, nor authorized. So who watches the watchers?

Some of the advanced cameras are equipped with microphones that can triangulate the location of a gunshot and swing the camera in that direction. In theory it should be possible for the camera to lock on to and track the shooter. I don't know that this has ever actually happened, though. I would think that if it had, the city would have splashed the video all over the news for everyone to see as an example of the success of the 6,000 camera program.

London is hardly an example of security cameras being used for good things. No one is sure how many cameras there are there, but there are estimates that it's in the hundreds of thousands. Yet 80% of London's street crimes are unsolved. Here's a BBC article indicating that it takes 1,000 cameras to solve one crime.

And just for fun -- a look at the camera network surrounding George Orwell's home: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-george-orwell-big-brother-is-watching-your-house.do

I'm not convinced that this wave of municipal security camera buying is fueled by anything more than mild paranoia and very good CCTV salesmen.

[editor]

London has them everywhere and it never bothered me. It actually made me feel happy knowing that if I were mugged, they'd have a nice clear picture of the assailant.

That's good if it makes you feel good, but statistics show that they're not going to catch the perp, no matter how many cameras are watching him mug you.

Why should we pay a ton of $$ for extra police to randomly patrol streets when we can have an entire area monitored by less staff... and dispatch officers to crimes in progress?

Police don't randomly patrol. There are very sophisticated computer programs that combined with community input create effective patrol patterns. I've seen them used in a couple of cities and they work well, until funding for the beat cops gets cut. Beat cops don't just wander aimlessly around the neighborhood like big blue Roombas.

I'd rather see more cops on the street than in their cars, or watching security monitors. Cops walking a neighborhood get to know the people who live there, what things should look like and shouldn't, and can detect very early on when something is amiss. Anyone who's ever walked more than a couple of blocks in their life knows that you see a lot more of what's going on around you when you walk compared with when you're in a car. Anyone who walks around their house or their block on a regular basis can tell when something is amiss. The additional visibility of a uniformed officer also acts as a deterrent to petty criminals.

[Gary]

About two years ago the mayor of Chicago bragged about having 3,000 police cameras installed around the city, and plans to double that number within two years.

Shortly after that, Chicago went through a crime wave. So far this year there have been over 400 murders in that city. Cameras won't bring those people back to life.

Would crime have been worse if the cameras weren't there? No one can really say.

Would crime have been reduced if the millions spent on the new OEMC was spent on beat cops? No one can really say.

I like the idea of fighting crime with technology, but I'm not yet convinced that it works in this form.

When NBC News asked Chicago for examples of how the cameras had prevented crime, the best thing the city offered a videotape of a police camera watching a burglar crawling into a person's window who was arrested a short time later.

It should be noted that there have been cases of camera operators being disciplined for looking in people's windows watching things they shouldn't. As long as there are people running the cameras, they will (through malice, carelessness, poor training, or pure voyeurism) be used for purposes they were not intended, nor authorized. So who watches the watchers?

Some of the advanced cameras are equipped with microphones that can triangulate the location of a gunshot and swing the camera in that direction. In theory it should be possible for the camera to lock on to and track the shooter. I don't know that this has ever actually happened, though. I would think that if it had, the city would have splashed the video all over the news for everyone to see as an example of the success of the 6,000 camera program.

London is hardly an example of security cameras being used for good things. No one is sure how many cameras there are there, but there are estimates that it's in the hundreds of thousands. Yet 80% of London's street crimes are unsolved. Here's a BBC article indicating that it takes 1,000 cameras to solve one crime.

And just for fun -- a look at the camera network surrounding George Orwell's home: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23391081-george-orwell-big-brother-is-watching-your-house.do

I'm not convinced that this wave of municipal security camera buying is fueled by anything more than mild paranoia and very good CCTV salesmen.

That Orwell link is kinda spooky. Thanks for the insight/info above.

[RedScare]

That's good if it makes you feel good, but statistics show that they're not going to catch the perp, no matter how many cameras are watching him mug you.

Police don't randomly patrol. There are very sophisticated computer programs that combined with community input create effective patrol patterns. I've seen them used in a couple of cities and they work well, until funding for the beat cops gets cut. Beat cops don't just wander aimlessly around the neighborhood like big blue Roombas.

I'd rather see more cops on the street than in their cars, or watching security monitors. Cops walking a neighborhood get to know the people who live there, what things should look like and shouldn't, and can detect very early on when something is amiss. Anyone who's ever walked more than a couple of blocks in their life knows that you see a lot more of what's going on around you when you walk compared with when you're in a car. Anyone who walks around their house or their block on a regular basis can tell when something is amiss. The additional visibility of a uniformed officer also acts as a deterrent to petty criminals.

Sadly, in most cities, police do randomly patrol, at least when they are not running from house to house taking reports of crimes already committed. Only in the last few years has HPD been able to both invest in the software capable of identifying "hotspots", as well as hire enough personnel to input the data needed to make the software work. They have a saturation squad that hits the hotspots, arresting drug users and dealers, as statistics show that an overwhelming number of burglaries and thefts are committed by drug users looking for enough money to buy their fix...at least they were. One of the tactics used involved arresting users found with crackpipes or meth pipes containing residual amounts of cocaine or meth, as any amount of these drugs is illegal. However, the District Attorney's Office announced that they would no longer accept so called "trace cases", as they were clogging the court dockets. While I am confident that HPD's saturation squad still operates, I do not know what effect the DA's policy has had on its effectiveness.

Video can be very useful when it provides a clear enough picture to identify the perpetrator. But, someone must retrieve the video, or else it is of no use whatsoever. In this sense, it is no better than the detective who looks (or doesn't look) for it. London studies seem to suggest that the criminals are undeterred by their camera system, likely because they've found that the cameras do not result in actual ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS. When this occurs, the cameras will begin to deter crime. Until then, they are akin to a hood ornament.

[dfwcre8tive]

We've had these in downtown Dallas for a few years, and they have been effective in controlling crime. There are currently 115 police cameras throughout the city.

http://www.wfaa.com/news/crime/Downtown-Dallas-cameras-capture-crimes-accidents-107710798.html

"Dallas' cameras led to more than 1,142 arrests in 2008. Last year, the figure rose to 1,536 arrests. During the first ten months of 2010, the cameras have helped capture 2,290 people breaking the law."

Edited December 1, 2010 by dfwcre8tive

[Jeebus]

Here's the story:

HOUSTON—A man opened fire on two police officers Saturday, injuring them as part of a two-hour episode that began at a downtown Houston bus station and ended with the suspect found dead in a parking garage three blocks away, officials said.

Link: http://www.khou.com/news/local/2-officers-shot-in-downtown-Houston-121444819.html

Now.. here's the raw footage of it happening:

Edited May 10, 2011 by editor
Copyright

[jdbaker]

Can we please move the Greyhound station now?

[kylejack]

I came down for the standoff. I never heard a gunshot, so I think he had already checked out by the time I got there. Seeing SWAT land on the roof of the garage was pretty interesting.

[brian0123]

My coworker was at a red light by the McDonald's when the gunman ran right by her shooting at HPD. She said the police were firing back so she floored it and ran the red light. It's amazing no one was hit.

Yes, we need to remove this bush station asap.

[august948]

Can we please move the Greyhound station now?

I thought I heard they were planning to move this station, but can't find any confirmation. Is that just an urban legend?

[brian0123]

I thought I heard they were planning to move this station, but can't find any confirmation. Is that just an urban legend?

It was supposed to go to the Intermodal Terminal north of Downtown... but funding for that went away.

[samagon]

I thought I heard they were planning to move this station, but can't find any confirmation. Is that just an urban legend?

pretty much, as I recall, when they were thinking about the 'intermodal terminal' thing, it was going to include lots of bus traffic, along with Greyhound.

the midtown management district is working on parks, and walkable sidewalks, they should be pouring every cent into getting that station gone.

I think the problem is, no where else in the city would want it.

Edited May 9, 2011 by samagon

[Highway6]

Problem is.. Grayhound is a private entity. Greyhound relocation isn't up to the City, isn't up to the midtown mgmt district, and isn't up to all their neighbors that don't want them there.

From Greyhound's perspective.. why would they want to move ?? It's not like they would escape the several square blocks of crime that they help generate. Do you think they have an iota of civic pride in them and see it as their duty to constantly move to blighted parts of town as to not halt the forward progress of upcoming parts of every city in which they do business... of course not. For their customers, They are ideally located next to a major metro transit stations and rail line. Seems like the only way they're ever going to move is if they are offered major incentives by the city either with a land swap, tax break, piles of money, etc. But again.. that would be an offer, not a command. It's up to Grayhound if they want to move.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Highway6

[kylejack]

It's located in the best place for a station. Central, and very good for transitioning to other modes of transit. You can catch a bus on Metro Transit Center or get on Airport Direct (for now) to IAH. They just need to continue stepping up security. There's a little more of a police presence, it seems, since the woman was kidnapped and killed at the McDonald's, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

[samagon]

Heh, sorry guys, I didn't mean to insinuate that anyone other than Greyhound has any say over where they are located.

I meant, if Midtown wanted them gone, they would spend money not on beautifying their part of the city, but offering to help Greyhound by giving them money to go somewhere else in the city, as far as saying that no one else would want them, it would be like Walmart 'invading' the heights, lots of unhappy residents, but ultimately it's something those people have to live with.

Personally, I think with continued problems there will be continued security enhancements, if not throughout greyhound, at least near this station.

Then again, how many shootings and whatnot where done there back in the 80s/90s?

hahaha, this just popped into my head...

Greyhound Bus Terminal: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.

Edited May 9, 2011 by samagon

[august948]

I meant, if Midtown wanted them gone, they would spend money not on beautifying their part of the city, but offering to help Greyhound by giving them money to go somewhere else in the city, as far as saying that no one else would want them, it would be like Walmart 'invading' the heights, lots of unhappy residents, but ultimately it's something those people have to live with.

Hey...there's still room in the new Heights Walmart shopping center, isn't there?

[ricco67]

It's located in the best place for a station. Central, and very good for transitioning to other modes of transit. You can catch a bus on Metro Transit Center or get on Airport Direct (for now) to IAH. They just need to continue stepping up security. There's a little more of a police presence, it seems, since the woman was kidnapped and killed at the McDonald's, but there's still a lot of room for improvement.

I forgot all about the kidnapping, but also that's where a group of four guys were picked up by a cab that was later shot and killed.

The only thing the city can do is make a specialized requirement for entities to provide security and deter people from just "hanging out", but I think greyhound could come right back and sue that it is being "picked on."

The best thing that could be done is to create a "compound" that would segregate the general public, provide affordable meals and entertainment for those that are merely waiting for connecting buses. That would require a substantial piece of land that would meet the requirements that have been previously stated by Highway 6. Not to mention it would be incredibly expensive.

As things stand, you have people that are waiting for connections that just want something to eat at the McDonald's, or just get out to stretch their legs, but also you have those that head towards the facility to hustle and con money out of people.

Considering how much we all like to whine about this bus station, a vast majority of people who take greyhound are law abiding who merely want to get from one destination to another in probably the only affordable transportation they can get.

Even most of the convicts that use greyhound after their release just want to get to their regular lives.

Everyone just want to go home.

The problem is that policing the area would require a substantial and tough presence of law enforcement. The realistic side is that for a private entity to do this would cut too much of their bottom line.

While this may be seem like of no importance to those of us that sit on comfy sofas, believe it or not, they serve a vital service and contribute a significant amount in employment and our economy as a whole.

I can't stand this bus stand, they need a larger and more efficient facility, the problem is that there are few locations that would fit their needs without people from nearby neighborhoods to come at them with torches.

[Jeebus]

Is there no area along I-10 that is mostly commercial in nature that would allow for both easy access to the station and to a major highway, as well as being removed from any residential neighborhoods?

[gto250us]

Overly zealous cops are at it again. Was that guy a danger to anyone? Not until the cops got involved. How many folks on a typical Houston street are carrying guns? Quite a few. We will all be in the most danger when the cops are the only ones with the guns.

Also, think about it. When you are riding the dog, it only makes sense to be packing a shooter or two. Look at what parts of town those stations tend to be in.

Edited May 9, 2011 by gto250us

[ricco67]

Is there no area along I-10 that is mostly commercial in nature that would allow for both easy access to the station and to a major highway, as well as being removed from any residential neighborhoods?

What prerequisites are you trying to get for the station?

Perhaps a 200 yard buffer from the nearest neighborhood?

[Highway6]

Overly zealous cops are at it again. Was that guy a danger to anyone? Not until the cops got involved. How many folks on a typical Houston street are carrying guns? Quite a few. We will all be in the most danger when the cops are the only ones with the guns.

One of the guns in this guy's procession was stolen property from a Houston resident, and this guy has been on the run since October from a shooting incident in SF.... and You blame the cops for not letting him be ???? There are ways to legally carry handguns. Without a license is not one of them. On public transportation is not one of them. Loaded in a duffle bag is not one of them. The cops acted responsibly and one less menace to society is gone..... and gone by his own choice, his own hand, may I add.

Edited May 9, 2011 by Highway6

[Fringe]

One of the guns in this guy's procession was stolen property from a Houston resident, and this guy has been on the run since October from a shooting incident in SF.... and You blame the cops for not letting him be ???? There are ways to legal carry handguns. Without a license is not one of them. On public transportation is not one of them. Loaded in a duffle bag is not one of them. The cops acted responsibly and one less menace to society is gone..... and gone by his own choice, his own hand, may I add.

Couldn't agree with you more. And it should be pointed out the cops tried to subdue the man without the use of firearms (taser). I for one am happy he's not roaming the streets of Houston.

[Jeebus]

Overly zealous cops are at it again. Was that guy a danger to anyone? Not until the cops got involved. How many folks on a typical Houston street are carrying guns? Quite a few. We will all be in the most danger when the cops are the only ones with the guns.

So, apparently you didn't even bother to read the original post, in that the man was wanted for assault charges in a triple shooting in San Francisco, had no CHL, and was carrying a firearm in a bus station?

Edited May 9, 2011 by Jeebus

[JJVilla]

Now I know the reason for the large police presence we saw in Midtown on Saturday evening and closure of the highway! We passed right by there around 6:15.

Edited May 9, 2011 by JJVilla

[Jeebus]

What prerequisites are you trying to get for the station?

Perhaps a 200 yard buffer from the nearest neighborhood?

Not sure. Just throwing out ideas. It seems that the one common complaint from everyone when talking about Midtown is that bus station.

[ricco67]

Not sure. Just throwing out ideas. It seems that the one common complaint from everyone when talking about Midtown is that bus station.

Before you just start throwing out ideas, you have to have a list of what you want and don't want and what parameters are needed by greyhound to be able to operate in an effective manner. It should also be close enough to transit for people to spread out to other parts of the city.

So far, it just seems that inside the loop is the only way to be.

If we're going to play this fantasy game, I'd like to suggest Patterson @ I-10.

[kylejack]

Overly zealous cops are at it again. Was that guy a danger to anyone? Not until the cops got involved. How many folks on a typical Houston street are carrying guns? Quite a few. We will all be in the most danger when the cops are the only ones with the guns.

Also, think about it. When you are riding the dog, it only makes sense to be packing a shooter or two. Look at what parts of town those stations tend to be in.

Weapons on the buses and in the station are illegal. The gun was stolen and involved in another Houston crime. The guy was wanted for shooting 3 people in California.