Dangerous downtowns?

i went through about 12 cases of beer watching ken burns baseball spectacular

 

Yeah was trying to remember that guy's name, excellent series. Lots of other's too.

 

The most recent Burns / Novik series I watched was The U.S. and the Holocaust. Before seeing that, I hadn't understood how badly the U.S., and most of our allies too, treated would-be Jewish refugees trying to flee Europe not just before WWII, but also during and even after WWII. Just a portion of the many histories that the generation just before me, didn't talk about.

 

The New Yorker weighs in....

 

I found an interesting article on the topic of Target stores set to close. Target has said they would close some stores due to crime, but it appears to be leaving some open in other areas with higher reports of crime than the ones they are closing.

if there's a pattern to fit, it looks like they're closing stores in areas where less-wealthy people live.

 

There must be some mistake.

 

I did not search for the stat, but a heinous crime of mass shooting seems to occur regardless of the city size or historical crime rate.

Downtown of Lewiston, Maine was never known for its high crime rate... Until now.

Posted via the PriusChat mobile app.

 

Shoplifting Statistics (2023): Retail Theft Data by State (capitaloneshopping.com)

"Highlights. Stores lost $112.1 billion to retail theft in 2022; projections indicate shoplifting could cost retailers over $140 billion in 2025.

• Shoplifting losses grew 19.4% year-over-year; as a share of retail sales dollars, losses to theft increased 10.5%.
• 58% of organized retail crime is cargo theft.
• Stores catch shoplifters roughly 2.0% of the time; the average shoplifter is arrested once out of every 100 incidents.
• Retailers lost $84.9 billion in fraudulent sales returns in 2022.
• The average shoplifting incident cost retailers $461.86 in 2020."

 

I'm no fan of Target stores.
I couldn't care less about their politics.
I've always believe that they were overly expensive and they offered fewer options for goods that I was interested in. I'm still a member of their online service because my travels occasionally take me to a city where there are local Target stores and sometimes you can find items in T that W does not have in stock.
Some of their loss-leader sales are worth a look if not a drive (shopping online for those.)
I'm a hard sell in the notion that they would be closing stores that are profitable, and crime statistics might not paint the whole picture. If Target really IS closing stores for malevolent reasons, they certainly are doing an admirable job of covering it up in their corporate culture.

If shoplifting is under-enforced in some cities, might they not also not be underrepresented statistically?
That's a genuine question since I can report that shoplifting in any amount is more aggressively pursued in my town than I have heard from in other locales.
Like most other towns you will not be thrown in jail here for minor shoplifting, but failing to appear following the resulting written summons WILL get you arrested and jailed.
The difference, I think, is at the point of retail.
Shoplifters will not just be allowed to leave after being filmed.
The police WILL be called and you WILL be detained - within reason.
Yes.
You can resist and flee, but you will be pursued in short order by our police department, if possible.
If not?
They WILL catch you eventually.
We used to have 2 Tar-jays within 20 miles but both have closed, requiring a near 50-mile drive to one of three remaining stores within....100 miles - I just checked.

As always, MY mileage.
Yours will vary.

 

I might add in some small towns you will have your arrest and the offense you were arrested for published in the local paper.

When it comes time for your court date your case disposition and sentence will also be published.

+1 on a company not closing a profitable store. Making money would be the reason they are a company.

 

Shoplifting, not obeying traffic laws, drunk driving, sense of entitlement, moral breakdown are all part of the social malaise that is affecting parts of our country and having a direct impact on the main title of this Thread "Dangerous Downtowns?"

The article below captures the root causes better that I could begin to, it applies to all crime not just violent crime. It is taboo to talk about the things in the article, but it is high time our Country begins to have some courageous conversations about the topics discussed in the article at the national level

Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community | Office of Justice Programs (ojp.gov)

 

Guess some are cool with Johnson's platform.

 

You know this is the second time you've presented that discredited citation in this same thread, right?

 

Oh, right, is that the one that's a 1995 Heritage Foundation screed, but ended up abstracted on an ojp.gov literature website, so he's using that URL to obscure the true source?

It had almost been long enough for me to forget the first time. Thanks for remembering.

 

The study is legitimate and as applicable today as it was when originally posted.

It mentions things considered taboo today and breaches hard subjects to talk about.

The problems in this thread are not political - nor belong to any party they are social and cultural.

Until our country faces up to these very hard problems with honest conversations and people begin actually communicating and coming to terms with these difficult social problems and cooperating with solutions nothing will change.

Let me model some cooperative behavior:

The person in post 131 mentions Johnson - I assume former Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. He seemed like a good man as was his former boss President Kennedy. Both served their country and JFK was considered a war hero. Though not a Democrat I consider JFK one of the greatest modern day Presidents.

The individuals in post in 132 and 133 seem to not like the study -which is fine and certainly their privilege.

I would consider all three individuals who posted in 131,132 and 133 to be good people who would have excellent reasons for their feelings.

What a shame we continued to dump the slime and mud of politics into this discussion where it muddies the water.

Good honest conversations about the social and cultural dynamics of this problem is what will move the understanding and solutions forward.

That is just not going to happen until people can respect others' opinions even if they differ from their own. Different opinions and life experiences should be a granted - they should not preclude conversation, cooperation and shared solutions.

Diversity is a good thing not something to be cancelled, stomped out or belittled.

 

A study that is only available as an abstract?

 

look at post 50

here is the link the gentleman posted

"For any interested reader, the full publication is available on the Heritage Foundation website."

Here is another link
eCopy, Inc. (thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com)

It is 36 pages long and quotes many behavioral Sociologist and Psychologist as well as referencing other studies and Leaders of our Country. It quotes then Senator Joe Biden and President Clinton. It will take someone with an open mind and keen desire to learn and evaluate to read the whole study.

 

English has always been a difficult subject for me. Everything from Spelling to Grammar but I once got an "A" in freshman English.

Assigned to write a technical paper, we were free to choose the subject and sources. Noticing the age of the male graduate student handling the course, I choose something about nuclear arms from an article, properly cited in Playboy. I still have fond memories of him explaining why he had to buy a copy of Playboy.

My point is getting someone to write a 'dodgy' paper is easy enough. I've bought a knuckle-headed paper from SAE and they are usually one of the better sources. Just because a report exists, we still have to use our minds to evaluate the evidence, facts, and data.

Bob Wilson

 

Only seems that way because the link posted was to a .gov site that merely indexed and abstracted it. A link to the actual publisher would have shown the whole thing.

Yes, the link was given back there; in fact, speaking of links, it wouldn't hurt to have links back to page 2 and page 3 of the thread, so any newcomers can easily see the discussion from last time around.

I can't speak for the individual in 132, but for my own part I would probably say I wasn't responding with dislike to the study itself, so much as a certain tactic used in bringing it into the conversation.

Looking back at the earlier go-round, another poster, in post #30, brought in a different publication, using a direct link to it that clearly identified the source:

The individual in post #32 then responded with three words about the article ("Article was interesting.") and 248 words imputing a political bias to the organization that published it (which was easy to identify, thanks to the direct link that was given to it).

Now, the individual in post #32 was the same individual who used post #40 and post #42 to bring another article into the conversation, but this time not by giving a direct link that identified its source. This article was brought in by an indirect link to a .gov website that linked out to external resources from unaffiliated sources. In fact, post #40 said nothing at all about the article's actual source, but used 116 words to play up the credibility of the government office that wasn't the source.

When called on that in post #43, which identified the actual source, to which political biases may also fairly be imputed, the same individual doubled down in post #44 on the misattribution to the government office. Making it more or less necessary for another individual to clear that up with the screenshot of post #48.

The same individual who wrote at length about the possible political bias of one source (which had been clearly identified when used), and then obscured the source of a different article and deflected discussion of that source's political bias, then later wrote:

I agree about the value of good honest conversations, and would add that honesty inheres in a lot of little details, like even the way we present and identify sources when making our posts.