Monday, November 11, 2013

DOUBLE DIPPED: Man Brushing Snow Off Car Robbed At Gunpoint; Thugs Rob His Passenger, Too

A restaurant worker who was brushing snow off of his car after work was approached on the street by two attackers who pulled a handgun and robbed him of his iPhone and wallet.

Not satisfied with robbing just one person, the offenders then robbed the passenger who was sitting inside the car, too. That victim lost $240 cash and a cell phone to the thugs.

It all went down just west of us at Byron and Marshfield at 11PM Monday night.

After robbing the two victims, the offenders may have run eastbound on Byron.

The suspects are described as two Hispanic men, about 5'8" tall, both wearing hoodies. One of the men covered his face with a scarf.

CWB reported on a similar-sounding robbery on October 23 in the same general area.  In that case, a resident who had just parked his car was robbed at gunpoint in the middle of the street at 10PM. That victim was also beaten by the offenders.

The October 23 suspects were described as two Hispanic men, 5'9" to 5'10" tall. One wore a white bandana on his face.

Monday's case numbers are HW530006.
Image: PCPaper

UPDATED 12 NOVEMBER 2013 5:30AM: The Chicago Tribune runs the story. They add the following detail regarding the robbery of the passenger:
The two then reached into the car, one punched the man inside, ripped open his pants pocket and took his iPhone. He refused medical attention, police said. 
UPDATED 12 NOVEMBER 2013 2PM: WGN picks it up. No additional info in their item.

UPDATED 12 NOVEMBER 2013 2:16PM: And ABC7 comes along for the ride. No new info in their item.

16 comments:

  1. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-lakeview-robbery-20131111,0,5791438.story

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thus proving that it is BS to think that we won't have any crime when the weather is cold or its snowy or rainy. These thugs are going to keep coming until we get enough cops on the street to show them that they're not welcome here. I often subconsciously fault people for getting mugged because they are stupid to walk alone with earphones in and iPhones out at 3am, but these guys were simply getting in their car at a relatively normal time of night. We are sitting ducks here in Lakeview with plenty of good stuff to steal and not nearly enough cops to stop it, and it doesn't matter what time of year it is. Thugs have winter coats and gloves, too (probably stolen from Sports Authority).

    ReplyDelete
  3. This crime situation is both frightening and ridiculous. The ONLY solution is to have more police actively patrolling the streets yet we are being stonewalled by the officials. Despite all the CAPS meetings, all the other community meetings, and the stellar crime reporting on this blog that spotlights the specific problems, we have no viable solution. As a taxpayer, I want adequate police protection but we seem to be making little progress to stop the victimization of our citizens. What can we do to enable the only solution-- a much higher police presence to apprehend these thugs and give our residents relief from this plague of crime?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is no solution because Mr. Tunney refuses to take a stand with other alderman who want to correct the problems created by our atrophying police force. He won't take a stand because he voted to cut the police budget and he has allowed the city to take away our police officers in direct conflict with the promises we were given when the two police districts merged.

      Mr. Tunney is a major roadblock to solutions.

      Delete
    2. Fact: Last night at the SELVN meeting, Alderman Tunney stated, and I quote, "Lakeview is one of the safest neighborhoods in the city." Even when presented with the stats that Lakeview is the #1 beat in the city for robberies. #1. When confronted with statistics about the increasing lack of safety in the neighborhood, he just stood there or thanked the person for their input. No real response.He keeps saying it's so safe here, but I have no idea where he gets that sense or information, because it's just not true. Show of hands - How many people feel safe walking around Lakeview? Okay, how many people don't?

      He needs to wake up and admit there's a very real problem with increasing crime here, or we need a new alderman who will actually acknowledge there's a problem and help us try to decrease the crime problem. He obviously doesn't care one whit about the residents he is supposed to serve. We need someone who actually does care about us and our safety. I don't want to fear getting mugged every time I walk a few blocks.

      And for the record, I'm not saying any one particular group of people is committing crime - I'm saying that crime is up in the neighborhood (FACT) and I want our Alderman to address that crime in increasing in our neighborhood and help us do something to address it and bring crime back down, and help us be safer again. By outright saying there is no crime problem, that does not help at all.

      He's in office until 2015, which scares me because by then who knows what our neighborhood will look like? Can we get him out of office before then? Is there some way to start a recall?

      Delete
  4. Agreed-- Tunney is totally ineffective at best-- and the crime rate continues to escalate. Clearly, we cannot rely on politicians to solve this problem. The district police chief's hands are tied from the police administration. Who or what entity can approve additional police? Is there anything that we taxpayers can actually do to unlock the stranglehold on the number of police deployed in our district? It's incredibly frustrating to follow all the rules and raise our voices through multiple channels (while paying the high taxes) and all this effort results in zero change to the fundamental problem of there not being enough police to keep the neighborhood even relatively safe. Have we asked the police chief and the alderman to articulate what it would take to get more police? If they claim that more manpower is not possible, what would it take to achieve our goal? What would need to change? Who can make that change happen? Identifying the problem is only half the battle. Now we need to define the solution that will result in a significantly positive change.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One point that is important to us at CWB: We're not asking for "more" police. We're asking for the same number that we had when the districts merged. We're now at least 25% down from those numbers.

      "More" is not "more." "More" is what we used to have.

      Sincere thanks for your contributions, Anonymous.

      Delete
  5. CWB-- Yes, "more" means more than we have today. Returning to the original number of police assigned is certainly not too much to ask. Thanks for all your dedicated efforts, CWB. Unlike all the "officials," you are making us more aware of the crimes so we can at least have a fighting chance of staying safe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I lived in Chicago, and attended CAPS meetings, I would look Tunney straight in the eye and say "Unless you are willing to speak under sworn oath, everything you say here will be deemed to be an outright lie".

    Your next authority level over Rahm/McCarthy is the State Attorney General. 25% cut in police are clearly in defiance of their oaths of office. It should be quite clear by now that complaining at CAPS meetings is a dog and pony show.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You people who continue to think that confronting Tunney with facts or threats really don't get it. He is going to do as he pleases to keep his backroom political alliances and considerable financial backing thriving. It is very tiring to continue to hear "Just wait until the next CAPS meeting and we'll tell him!" Geesh.

      Delete
    2. Agreed more of the same wont lead to progress. Time to switch it up. So what are the most effective options? A media attracting series of protests outside Tunney's office? A billboard message in the heart of boystown demanding protection? Engaging the State Attorney General or National Guard? Has this been done before?

      Delete
  7. The lack of fundamental knowledge is frustrating. There is no "police chief" in Chicago. We have a Superintendent of Police. He is an appointee of the mayor. In other words, he's a political appointee beholden to the Mayor. He, in turn, appoints the 22 district commanders. Most of those have risen to that level through, you guessed it, political connections within or outside the CPD. The alderman are elected, but if they get too far out of line with the current mayor he basically threatens to cut off their family jewels with a dull knife while ensuring city services are cut off simultaneously. Mayor Tiny Dancer flat out refuses to hire more police or replenish the ones we have lost through retirements, transfers, etc. One of the reasons we've lost cops is the idiot executive officer McCarthy stuck in 019. He's was a horrible human being and officers actually bid to go to "bad districts" rather than deal with him. He's gone now, so I expect that the bidding out will slow if not stop completely. I know most people here won't believe me, but cops know that Tunney was asking the hard questions about police staffing levels long before any other alderman. Because he doesn't choose to pick that battle in public, doesn't mean gets not fighting it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We've written about the alderman's questions.

      Asking questions is one thing. Doing something about the answers and deviation from promises in those answers is another thing altogether.

      Leaders lead.

      Delete
  8. I contacted the Chicago Board of Elections and they say there is no provision to recall an Alderman, we have to wait until 2015 election and vote in someone else. That said, I did review some of Chicago’s Ordinances and found the following that people may be very interested in.
    http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicago_il/municipalcodeofchicago?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicago_il

    Title 8, Chapter 8-4,
    8-4-10 – Disorderly Conduct
    8-4-015 – Gang Loitering – We need to find out if our area has been designated for enforcement of this provision and if it hasn’t then we need to insist that it is.
    8-4-025 – Aggressive panhandling – Useful for folks to know about and know what they are not allowed to do.
    8-4-050 – Trespassing
    8-4-060 – Vandalism
    8-4-070 – Responsibility of Parent or Legal Guardian
    8-4-081 – Public Urination
    8-4-087 – Chronic Illegal activity premises – We need to put pressure to enforce this provision.
    8-4-090 – Drug and gang houses, house of prostitution and other disorderly houses

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good research buddy.

      Delete