Monday, January 25, 2010

Small world!

One of the people charged in the counterfeit money/ drug bust last week was on federal probation for her involvement in the firebombing of the home of community activist Edna McAbier. Surely you remember that one: "the leader of the area Bloods initially wanted to shoot her in the head with a shotgun, but the gang dismissed the idea as not dramatic enough."
McAbier still lives in hiding, as far as we know... unlike at least one of her would-be killers!


John Galt said...

And so, this is how it works in Baltimore:

the decent people have to leave and the hoodlums get every consideration to keep them here.

Think about it.

Is it any wonder most decent people in this country would never think of living here for a minute??

John Galt said...

When the incoming Mayor wants businesses to fail, rather than collaborate, she'll probably get her wish.

If the owners encourage crime, that's one thing, but when customers get rowdy, even violent, it is up to the police to deal with it. So often these politicians want to dump their workload on someone,... anyone,... else.

Baltimore has such a history of driving out legit small business and ignoring criminal 'ghetto entrepreneurs', it should probably anticipate a deep, deep decline in its economic fortunes, because its small business that creates employment and a tax base, not sweetheart deals with big campaign contributors.

John Galt said...

Excuse me? What has happened to the Police Dept. crime mapping system ???

Has it completely imploded ??

Anonymous said...

Frederick H. Bealefeld III ordered police to stop moonlighting as bouncers or private security at bars. He feared that the officers were too beholden to whichever business was paying the bills that night, and now businesses pay into a pool to have extra officers in their general vicinity.

Bars have to pay protection money for service they should be getting as taxpayers.

ppatin said...


White I sort of agree with you, let's not forget that bars generate extra trouble as a result of their business model. Even if they have a tame clientelle, having hundreds of drunks spilling out onto the street at 2 AM can be a pain in the ass.

Cham said...

With 10 people arrested I'm very surprised only one of them was out on parole or probation.

John Galt said...


If you don't like liquor, then reinstate prohibition, but you cannot pick and choose who gets public safety. That's what makes it public.

In the alternative, you disband the police and tell everyone they have to get hired guns privately and you legislatively enable self-help.

John Galt said...

I have no problem with improving the City's call centers, but I certainly don't want union people involved.

Cham said...

Years ago when the hordes left the bars and acted up, woke the neighbors, crashed their cars into parked cars, and started fights in the streets, the bar owners would simply say, "Hey, my customers left the bar so they no longer are my responsibility. If you are affected by what they do its your problem".

Thankfully, some of the laws have changed. If a bar attracts the patrons to the neighborhood, served them drinks to the point where the patrons become obnoxious, and then when the customers no longer are able to behave toss them out on the street, then, yes, the bad behaving people ARE the bar's responsibility. And yes, the bar does need to monitor the behavior of the clientele after they leave the bar in the immediate vicinity, lest they lose their license to operate.

As far as I'm concerned, we need a few of these types of laws for homeless shelters who are now pulling the same crap.

ppatin said...


I'm just being pragmatic. Any area with a high concentration of bars is going to use a disproportionately large share of police resources when last call rolls around. Yeah, in theory our taxes should pay for all the the police protection we could ever want but it'll never work that way. Having bar owners chip in some money for a few overtime shifts seems like the easiest way to deal with this sort of thing.

John Galt said...

OK, so how about the argument that since almost no crime takes place in Guilford and almost all of it takes place in the ghetto, we should then require that anyone moving into the 'hood pay a large surtax for police services?

Hey, if bars correlate with a disproportionate number of antisocial behaviors, then the yos hit the jackpot.

The point is, you just want to dump it on bars because they're focal and easy to identify.

A 'Yo tax' would be harder to administer, politically unpopular, but far, far more effective in matching the incidence of the incidents.

ppatin said...

Come on, that's an apple to oranges comparison. Bars by their very existence encourage a certain amount of low-level anti-social behavior, and the trouble they attract is disproportionate to the taxes they pay. I get your point that it sucks to have them pay a protection surtax, but of all the problems facing this city that's one of the mildest.

Anonymous said...

Instead of the bars paying the city for protection, why not let them hire the cops directly as moonlighters?

That way, the bars get a dollar's worth of work for a dollar paid. Money given to the city government will result in a 50% return if that much.

ppatin said...

If they hire the cops as moonlighters then the money still goes through the city. Also, buzoncrime explained the various reasons that having cops work directly for bars is problematic. It had a lot to do with liability, along with conflicts of interest (does the cop turn a blind eye if he sees his employer doing something illegal, does he ignore crime that's not directly related to his job at the bar, etc etc.)