Downtown Minneapolis--Crime Problems (Richfield: sales, Valentine's day, felon)

[ManBearPig1]

From that very article:

By 2:35 a.m., the streets were basically clear. Police prepared to let traffic flow again.

Just get rid of having the one bar closing time and most of the chaos goes away. The problem is everyone flooding out onto the street at the same time. Let people disperse at their own pace, and you don't get the crowds that cause this.

[Slevin Kelevra]

Everything is relative. Minneapolis' crime rate is ridiculously low for a city of its size. I always laugh when I hear people complain about the Minneapolis or St. Paul crime rates. Could it be better, of course. Is it actually poor, of course not. Minneapolis is one of the safest top 20 cities in the country.

[northsub]

Originally Posted by Slevin Kelevra

Everything is relative. Minneapolis' crime rate is ridiculously low for a city of its size. I always laugh when I hear people complain about the Minneapolis or St. Paul crime rates. Could it be better, of course. Is it actually poor, of course not. Minneapolis is one of the safest top 20 cities in the country.

Maybe as a metro, but the city of Minneapolis is top 20 in violent crime rate per capita amongst cities with 250,000+ population. The rate is basically double what you will find in Seattle, Denver, or Portland. It's also generally has the highest rape rate in the country.

[Toronto416]

When I got my iPhone, and later iPad, I did a search under scanners and found a whole host of police scanners online. My advice would be to listen to their police frequencies every now and then (Downtown Minneapolis is the 1st Precinct). Unless you're out and about at 1-4 am, mostly you'll hear calls for public intoxication, minor traffic accidents, shoplifting, disorderly conduct at the Greyhound Bus Station or Salvation Army, occasional problems at the notorious Loring Towers Apartments on Nicollet and Grant (BAD Section 8 high rise) but that's about it. The years I lived downtown I saw/heard very little. I think people have it backwards to be honest - often you're safer downtown. Nobody with kids (almost nobody) lives downtown because there's no houses, and so you don't have neighborhood gangs or have to deal with high schools or middle schools. Oh yea - spotcrime dot com is another good interactive crime map site.

Panhandling isn't as bad as it used to be, and really the only inconvenience you'd have to get used to if you lived downtown are sirens (especially if you live along Nicollet, Hennepin, Marquette, or Washington or other arteries that emergency vehicles use). Yes, I've heard the stories of gangs, 'flash mob robberies' and the failed Block E. However, in the years I lived downtown (had the cutest studio at 1212 Yale Pl.) I never had issues because nothing at Block E, City Center, bars or street life at 11pm because that didn't interest me. Usually, if you're not looking for trouble, and most of us aren't, you'll be fine.

I'm currently in downtown Duluth, Minnesota, where apparently everyone with no money has been given a bus ticket to Duluth from Detroit, Buffalo, Chicago, Cleveland, Los Angeles, Phoenix, Oakland - cities/states with NO public housing open, three-strikes laws, and violent offenders. It's MUCH less safe in Duluth because the affluence and multi-million dollar condos that you see in Minneapolis but not in downtown Duluth. It's very unsettling when you've got a downtown full of people with no money who've been here less than three months, and they're only here because the social services in their home cities are long gone. At least Minneapolis has the affluence to balance that out. It's interesting to talk to locals in Duluth who say their downtown - quickly losing the sketchy dump 'hotels' - now see open air drug dealing and hookers on 1st St by the casino, robberies and ER nurses who see many victims of violent fights nightly in 2012; in 1982 maybe they'd see 1-2 a month. In downtown Duluth we currently have a serious homeless problem involving heroin addicts who are HIV+ and have Hep C; something that the city is not equipped to handle currently. That's one disadvantage of one city (Minneapolis) progressing with condos and new post-grad programs (and higher costs of living) sending those without any money but a litany of addictions, homelessness and criminal behavior to mid-sized cities like Duluth.

[Glenfield]

I'm not saying it's perfect here, but most of the crime is some very low intensity stuff. Not that the two cities are at all comparable (so save those comments) but here's some high intensity crime for you.
A day in the life - Culture - Detroit Metro Times

[Beenhere4ever]

You're kidding me, right? Now the TV channel is the problem? By reporting truthfully they are being "shady"? That sort of takes ostrichlike behavior to its logical conclusion. Frankly, I'm glad the media is jumping on this. While it is a neighborhood secret, our savvy politicians are only too glad to look the other way. I just watched a program on the Chicago Mob that said when Capone ordered the St Valentine's Massacre, it was his biggest mistake. Till then, the gang warfare was shrugged off. But it was so spectacular and bloody, people stopped being willing to shrug anymore. Well, same with our downtown crimes. If the media give it the attention it deserves, that's' the best way to shame City Hall into caring (about something other than what corporate titans shout in their ears).

[Beenhere4ever]

Speaking of which, before the scanners came into use in airports, security used to wand people for metal objects. I wonder if there's a legal reason the MPD can't wand unruly people coming out of bars, find the ones who are packing guns illegally and give them some time in the cooler for violating gun laws. Maybe that would convince some either to drink in their neighborhoods or come downtown without some kind of handgun on them. Frankly, knowng there are a lot of guns around SHOULD make them all very cautious about arguments, but these people aren't too well endowed with smarts, and TOO endowed with ego. So they respond to any sort of perceived offense with disorderly conduct. I'd love to see them spending some time in stir for their preparations.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

Speaking of which, before the scanners came into use in airports, security used to wand people for metal objects. I wonder if there's a legal reason the MPD can't wand unruly people coming out of bars, find the ones who are packing guns illegally and give them some time in the cooler for violating gun laws. Maybe that would convince some either to drink in their neighborhoods or come downtown without some kind of handgun on them. Frankly, knowng there are a lot of guns around SHOULD make them all very cautious about arguments, but these people aren't too well endowed with smarts, and TOO endowed with ego. So they respond to any sort of perceived offense with disorderly conduct. I'd love to see them spending some time in stir for their preparations.

Well, there's that pesky Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

[Beenhere4ever]

Well, there's that pesky Constitution, specifically the 4th Amendment.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

You know better than that. There is a couple of hundred years of case law defining "unreasonable". Most people like to focus on the rights part. But the truth is that there is another fundamental right, the right to be safe in your person, and someone who comes downtown with a gun or knife to drink and party is a definite hazard to the rights of all those around him. If he's already committing a crime, the police will always search him before cuffing him. But a search by feel misses things. A metal detecting wand might cause a few more things to be found. And concealed weapons, especially stolen ones, are not the "effects" the composers of the Bill of Rights meant to protect. They were thinking of Royal law enforcers who simply barged into colonial homes whenever they felt like it. So there's no reason for a criminal to be "secure" in his possession of an illegal gun. And I'm pretty sure the normal public will want them found to prevent these shootings that sometimes take out passersby because the carrier has so little training in use of the illegal weapon.

[golfgal]

Originally Posted by Beenhere4ever

You know better than that. There is a couple of hundred years of case law defining "unreasonable". Most people like to focus on the rights part. But the truth is that there is another fundamental right, the right to be safe in your person, and someone who comes downtown with a gun or knife to drink and party is a definite hazard to the rights of all those around him. If he's already committing a crime, the police will always search him before cuffing him. But a search by feel misses things. A metal detecting wand might cause a few more things to be found. And concealed weapons, especially stolen ones, are not the "effects" the composers of the Bill of Rights meant to protect. They were thinking of Royal law enforcers who simply barged into colonial homes whenever they felt like it. So there's no reason for a criminal to be "secure" in his possession of an illegal gun. And I'm pretty sure the normal public will want them found to prevent these shootings that sometimes take out passersby because the carrier has so little training in use of the illegal weapon.

That word "unreasonable" throws some people .

I suspect that the wanding issue is more a personal safety issue for the police officers than a "constitutional" issue. You have to get pretty close to a suspect to wand them and your attention is elsewhere while using the wand. Tasers are better for subduing a suspect so the police officer can safely frisk them for weapons. People seem to forget that when you are misbehaving, you throw a lot of your "rights" out the window and law enforcement officers are well within legal rights to search your person.