More guns, younger gunmen spur jump in S.F. homicides

[shermacman]

Guns are being "taken into custody"!
A very pathetic article with some amazing conclusions.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/31/MNG62H06931.DTL

Underlying the increase in homicides in San Francisco in 2005 appear to be two disturbing trends -- high-crime neighborhoods awash in guns and gunmen who are younger and quicker to pull the trigger.

"We're definitely taking more guns into custody, and there are more guns out there than ever before," Cashman said.

 

[KriegHund]

I thought they banned all guns completely in SF. Or was that just handguns.

 

[Maxwell]

There are fewer legal guns, and thats the problem
Gun control uses the spike in crime its caused as justification for more gun control.

In the end what you have are police officers sweeping scrap metal off the street instead of putting criminals in jail.

 

[Standing Wolf]

San Francisco doesn't have disturbing trends. It just is a disturbing trend.

 

[merk]

San Francisco doesn't have disturbing trends. It just is a disturbing trend.

+1.


*Cant wait until California falls off the semi-sane mainland*

 

[Thefabulousfink]

How can there be more shootings? Aren't guns illegal in S.F.? Obviously we need to make guns illegal-ier (more illegaly?) that will stop criminals from getting guns to break the law with.

 

[Zen21Tao]

"Cashman said some young gunmen are the offspring of parents whose neighborhoods were ravaged by crack cocaine trafficking during the 1980s. They "never had a chance, for the most part," growing up under the direct influence or coercion of gangs, he said."

(Sarcastically) There you go. It is society's fault for allowing these poor unfortunate kids to become hardened criminals. The only way to stop this trend of violence is with more social programs.

The main problem I have with liberalism is its abandonment of personal responsability. People choose freely whether or not to do the things they do. Their is no doubt that environment can influence behavior but it should never be used as an excuse to defuse blame. Libs want to feel bad for these poor unfortunate youths screaming to the heavens that they don't need imprisionment they need freedom with counseling. How many times do they need to re-affend before libs stop blaming society (and blaming the gun) before they cast blame where it belongs, on the criminal, and lock the person away?

 

[Langenator]

SF's incredibly low rate of proscution for murder, attempted murder, and other violent crimes has nothing to do with the increase in those same crimes.

Nothing at all.

 

[engineer151515]

"We're definitely taking more guns into custody, and there are more guns out there than ever before," Cashman said.


Thumbcuffs on a Glock?


Alright all you guns. On the ground now. Actions open. You have the right to remain silent...........

 

[ArmedBear]

Maybe the fact the SFPD isn't allowed to enforce the most basic laws, and "liberal" judges won't punish perpetrators might have something to do with it.

I know there are good people left in "the City" as its residents so arrogantly call the place, so that tempers my feelings.

But otherwise, it's like I might feel if a guy who was showing off by rollerskating around the top edge of a skyscraper to impress a crowd during downtown lunch hour, fell off. I'd shrug and figure that must have been, deep down, what he wanted, and move on.

Am I cold? I don't know.

I do know that there are people who actually WANT to do the right things, and if anyone gets my support and help, it's them, not the people who voted Gavin Newsome and his merry band of totalitarians into office. Screw 'em. I've got my own home to look after.

 

[Standing Wolf]

The main problem I have with liberalism is its abandonment of personal responsability.

Well, yeah, sure, but only the state can be responsible, because only the state knows what's best.

 

[ArmedBear]

Here's another example of SF stupidity.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/31/MNGSUH0C8H4.DTL

The cops are going to close off part of the city AT RUSH HOUR for a moonbat protest today. There's nothing about the First Amendment that requires shutting down the center of a big city and keeping working people from getting home to their families. But they're doing it, just to show their spite for the everyday American, I guess.

Screw 'em.

 

[mordechaianiliewicz]

More proof of what I've been saying for years!

:banghead: The hyper-liberals of San Francisco are nuts! They have high crime b/c of social inequalities, the drug war, and cost of living, same as everywhere else in America!

 

[gunsmith]

I recently escaped SF

there is a silver lining here, if you are not looking for trouble you can ccw to your hearts content. the police are to busy to bother people who are not really messing up.
I went thru a red light on my motorcycle, the cops asked me why...I smiled and said "because I didn't see any cops"...they had a good laugh and let me go.
but the politics are really insane, I say lets ad to their misery!
tell every smelly homeless shiftless person you see that SF gives out medical marijuana cards and provides free housing for homeless and really generous welfare benefits. (true)
Also send every thief you run into to SF because they really don't prosecute (true)
In fact try to get the word out that SF is a haven for every crime and the likelyhood of doing any time is slim...maybe we can lower the crime rate in our respective home towns by sending them all to SF
plus even more businesses will leave town and boost your hometowns economy

 

[slopemeno]

Sooo-
If SF's crime rate is only slightly higher than Houstons's...

compare-contrast anyone?

 

[adaman04]

Well, at least their handgun ban lowered the crime rate? Wait, what was the last ban that did anything positive? Worthless trash and crazy people will always be killing eachother. Why make us turn in our guns? The nuts gangstas and druggies sure as hell aren't.

 

[1911_sfca]

Guns are being "taken into custody"!

Alright all you guns. On the ground now. Actions open. You have the right to remain silent...........

OK, English nazis. Please note that this is a perfectly correct usage of the term custody. Look it up. Custody means the protective care of a person or thing. Not "under arrest". Someone who is arrested is under the protective custody of the police, meaning the police have the duty to protect that person.

I thought they banned all guns completely in SF. Or was that just handguns.

Possession of handguns, and it's been postponed till end of March (court battle is later this month).

Here's another example of SF stupidity.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...NGSUH0C8H4.DTL

The cops are going to close off part of the city AT RUSH HOUR for a moonbat protest today.

"Part of the city"? It's a couple of streets directly adjacent to Union Square, which is the shopping/tourist area of the city that's already inconvenient to drive through. No one would go home from work through here, and if they did, it would only require a 1-block detour.


Too bad a lot of people on this forum so fond of bashing SF and California. There's a reason why everyone wants to live here, even if you don't.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The whole article. Note the part that is in bold.

Underlying the increase in homicides in San Francisco in 2005 appear to be two disturbing trends -- high-crime neighborhoods awash in guns and gunmen who are younger and quicker to pull the trigger.

At a hearing Monday before a special Board of Supervisors committee formed to delve into the homicides -- slayings concentrated in Bayview-Hunters Point, the Western Addition and the Mission -- San Francisco police reported that they responded to 315 shootings last year, a 21 percent jump over the 260 shootings logged in 2004.

Meanwhile, according to police statistics, killings resulting from gunshots have steadily risen over the past five years, doubling from 39 in 2001 to 80 in 2005.

Last year, police presented 133 gun cases to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution under federal gun laws, compared with 77 in 2004, police Capt. Kevin Cashman told the supervisors. Also in 2005, police seized 1,089 firearms, Cashman added, though he provided no comparable figures for the previous year.

"We're definitely taking more guns into custody, and there are more guns out there than ever before," Cashman said.

"A lot of the shooters out there are younger," he added. "The kids are coming up, and they're a little reckless. That's the generation we all have to worry about."

Cashman said some young gunmen are the offspring of parents whose neighborhoods were ravaged by crack cocaine trafficking during the 1980s. They "never had a chance, for the most part," growing up under the direct influence or coercion of gangs, he said.

In the last two years, a total of 184 people were slain in San Francisco -- both by guns and other means. Half of the suspects and nearly a third of the victims in those killings were between the ages of 19 and 24, police said.

Of the 96 people killed in San Francisco in 2005, 83 percent were slain by guns, police said. In 2004, 88 people were killed, and 71 percent of those killings were committed with guns.

Franklin Zimring, a UC Berkeley professor and expert on crime trends, said that while San Francisco's homicide rate is low on a per capita basis compared with Richmond's and Oakland's, the role of guns in city killings is striking.

"That's a big change for San Francisco," Zimring said. "That happens to be a little bit higher than Houston. That's a surprising percentage."

Zimring doesn't attribute the change to an influx of guns, saying firearms always have been widely available in California. Rather, he said, it's a change in the way younger criminals are choosing to arm themselves and the way they choose to settle disputes.

"It's a localized phenomenon," he said. "When some younger street offenders get guns in conflict situations, that creates its own sort of armament momentum. ... Each side can tell you that it's for self-defense and mean it."

The hearing Monday was part of a series before the committee, which is exploring both the causes of the rise in homicides and thestrategies local police, prosecutors and other law enforcement and social service agencies are employing to combat the violence.

In addition to hearing from Cashman, who works in the investigations bureau for San Francisco police, the supervisors took testimony from San Francisco District Attorney Kamala Harris, who took office in January 2004.

Cashman said that while police have had recent success in getting guns out of the hands of criminals -- in some cases buying them back before they could be used in a shooting -- prosecuting those responsible for the rising number of homicides has proved more difficult.

Out of the 96 homicides in 2005, police have made just 22 arrests, though they note that the percentage of the cases they solve is 50 or 60 percent and that arrests in some cases come years after the killings.

Cashman repeated a police assertion that community reluctance to supply information to detectives has hamstrung investigations.

"What we're not as adept in is solving the murders," he said. "Because, you know what, for murders we need witnesses, and we need evidence. ... If we could find a root cause of why people won't come forward, whatever the reasons may be, that's what we need to attack. Why won't people come forward and become witnesses? And if we could get to that, the murder rate would take care of itself."

Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, whose district includes the Western Addition, which saw a spike in murders in 2005, said his constituents have told him they feel they can't go to the police. "It's the reality, for whatever the reason, that trust runs thin in some segments of San Francisco," he said.

District Attorney Harris used the hearing to counter criticism that her office has been reluctant to prosecute homicides except when police present the strongest of evidence. Harris noted that police have made 41 arrests since she took office and that her office has charged 31 of the cases.

She also said she has instituted a policy calling for a 90-day jail sentence for anyone convicted of a misdemeanor gun offense and state prison sentences for defendants convicted of gun-related felonies.

Harris named the city's adult probation office as a soft spot in San Francisco's law enforcement system, saying its budget hasn't been maintained commensurate with its workload and, as a consequence, criminals released from jail aren't being monitored as they should be.

"It is a matter of being able to monitor the activity of people who are on active probation, who have committed violent crime," she said. "It's an amazing thing they're able to get anything done. The adult probation office has been reduced to just writing reports. ... They don't have their folks out on the street."

Arturo Faro, the city's chief probation officer, agreed. "It's true, over the course of the last three budget cycles, we've suffered some cutbacks. It's a very fair, accurate statement on her part."

Faro estimated that his department is short about two dozen probation officers and that the typical officer now has a caseload of 200 probationers.

Harris acknowledged the difficulty police have in gathering "real evidence" without good cooperation from witnesses.

She also said the police investigations bureau needs to be beefed up enough so the department can respond immediately to shootings and thoroughly canvass neighborhoods for potential witnesses.

Once witnesses are found, there is room for improvement, too, she said. Although her office has 11 witnesses in a state-funded protection program, Harris said the city could be more effective in working with people with information about homicides if it could cut through red-tape that can delay enrollment in the protection program for up to three days.

"These are people who need to get in immediately," Harris told supervisors. "I'd ask the board to consider what it might have as a role in bridging that gap."

Allen Nance, head of Mayor Gavin Newsom's Office of Criminal Justice, said more needs to be done to get young victims of crime and young potential criminals off the streets during the late night, weekend hours when homicides are most likely to occur.

A city curfew requires children 14 and younger to be at home between midnight and 5 a.m. Nance suggested that parents whose children violate the curfew could themselves be cited. "I certainly think it's something that we should explore," he said.

E-mail Charlie Goodyear at [email protected].


I'm glad that Mr. Goodyear included the UC Berk. Prof. Zimring's comment. A similar article appeared in the Examiner and Zimring's comments were not included.

 

[Henry Bowman]

Out of the 96 homicides in 2005, police have made just 22 arrests, though they note that the percentage of the cases they solve is 50 or 60 percent and that arrests in some cases come years after the killings.

Then how do they have any idea that the "gunmen" are, on average, young.

Cashman said that while police have had recent success in getting guns out of the hands of criminals -- in some cases buying them back before they could be used in a shooting -- prosecuting those responsible for the rising number of homicides has proved more difficult.

And what support do they have for this statement? How many criminals bought their gun from the police and then sold it back before using it?