Sunday, December 01, 2013

WRIGLEY: Several Arrests, Man With Gun Escapes

The Wrigleyville police manpower sponge sucked up the district's resources as usual overnight. One offender with a gun escaped capture:

12:50AM—Fight outside of Sluggers, 3540 N Clark.

1:14AM—One arrest for stealing from the bar at Deuces and The Diamond Club, 3505 N Clark.

1:45AM—Five men fighting in front of John Barleycorn, 3524 N. Clark. At least one arrest.

1:52AM—Fight in front of Moe's Cantina, 3518 N Clark.

1:55AM—An off-duty officer reports a battery in progress at the intersection of Eddy and Seminary streets. One person is seen retrieving something from a silver Ford SUV.

Officers determine that a group of four men and women "jumped" another group on the street. Two females are arrested, the other offenders escape toward Clark Street.

One of the men who got away is armed with a handgun.

Two victims who "got beat pretty good" are treated by an ambulance crew.
Image: New Grounds

37 comments:

  1. Is there no way to go after the liquor licenses of these trouble spots? I would think the residents who live within that immediate area should begin some formal complaints.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I live in the 38th precinct of the 44th ward which includes Sluggers, John Barleycorn, Moe's Cantina etc. It has been my dream to vote the entire precinct dry. There are about 750 registered voters of whom many are property owners. Once they begin to realize that this nonsense is detrimental to property values I think it can gain some traction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keep dreaming fool.

      Delete
    2. Keep dreaming, yes. Fool? Obviously inappropriate. If some people never sought the impossible, blacks would still be slaves and women would still be trying to get the vote. So yes, the powers would fight the effort until hell froze over, but I think it is a great discussion to surface in a blog such as this.

      Delete
    3. You need to start organizing those property owners.

      Delete
    4. This the “fool” again. Not as far fetched as one would think. If 25% of the registered voters in the precinct ( 750/4 = 188 ) sign a vote dry referendum petition it goes on the ballot at the next general election. If half the voters vote “dry” it is a done deal. The precinct is at least 66% home owners/condo owners, if they feel their property values are being affected by this rowdy behavior it could happen. Would you want to live next to this activity? This has been discussed quietly among many people in the precinct.

      Source: The Illinois Liquor Control Act of 1934 (235ILCS 5/9-1 et seq.)

      BTW I love it when people hurl insults anonymously, shows their true character. BRING IT ON

      Delete
    5. Gee maybe we should ban all liquor and call it Prohibition. That would work very well. Yes let's do that.

      Delete
    6. You ARE a fool for BUYING in that area! What did you expect in the biggest bar neighborhood in the biggest bar city!? Taking booze away isn't the answer, more cops is. That area needs almost as much attention as it got after the Hawks celebration every Friday and Saturday night.....and TBOX!

      Delete
  3. Is this Entertainment detail really doing any good? Do they have a plan every night? Rush and Division was like this years ago, but the police took it back and keep it under control. Why can't they handle wrigleyville every weekend?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "detail" is simply overwhelmed. There is a total of about 8 officers on the detail. Every arrest requires at least two of the officers to leave the street to process the arrestee. As you can tell, it doesn't take long for the "detail" to be crippled.

      Delete
    2. The detail could work but I was told that the officers will only be there Friday and Saturday now.... and they will be needed else where during the week. This is unfortunate, the police detail offered a great presence 7 days aweek.

      Delete
    3. The Clark Street detail was not a 7 day a week operation.

      Delete
    4. The entertainment detail is manned by a sergeant who cares. How do I know? I worked for him once. You should count yourself lucky you have him.

      Delete
  4. Yes...when Englewood was made dry, all crime vanished and property values exploded...which is why everyone wants to live there now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your tenacity in submitting comments about Englewood being dry is admirable. The fact is that the vast majority of Englewood is NOT dry.

      If one wishes to draw a comparison between alcohol sales and crime rates—and we don't—Beverly and Morgan Park stand out.

      http://voices.suntimes.com/none/graphic-alcohol-free-map-of-chicagos-dry-precincts/

      Delete
  5. Maybe the threat of going dry will convince bar owners to clean up their acts by cutting off people before they make fools of themselves. Doesn't appear that governing authorities want to do anything about it. Having lived in California, I got to appreciate the 2AM closing time. If not dry, why not push for earlier closings. From experience, they don't start drinking out there any earlier then they do here, just because of the 2AM closings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every instance of fighting in this example happened before 2AM so your point is ridiculous. And why should the great majority have to curtail their fun just to try to stop a few jerks from fighting?

      Delete
    2. I lived in San Francisco for 10 years and there were more after hours bars than regular bars. The real drinking and real fighting happened after the regular bars closed.

      Delete
  6. I agree that the pressure needs to be put on the bar owners in Boystown and Wrigleyville to police themselves and their patrons but if the area is voted dry, what businesses will replace these empty bar and restaurant spaces? There are already too many empty storefronts on parts of Clark Street in Lincoln Park and on Broadway and Halsted. No bars, restaurants or retail means no sales tax or real estate tax income, which means the area will really turn into a no mans land like Englewood. Along with the citizens, the bar owners and the Ricketts really need to step up and push the city to hire police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree completely. As usual, people are avoiding the real problem...NOT ENOUGH POLICE...just as the public officials do, and recommending stupid ideas like that the bars be closed.

      In case they haven't figured it out, the bars in the entertainment district near Wrigley pay enormous taxes that help us all and serve a very real public entertainment need by providing a place to have fun. Closing them to avoid fights is the same as saying we should ban all automobiles because sometimes people get hurt.

      Or maybe they think the gun ban in Chicago worked out well too?

      Delete
  7. I think a large part of the problem along Clark street is too many bars breeds too many drunks. On the west side of Clark street from Addison to Cornelia (2 blocks) it is basically one bar after another. Another huge, barn like, bar has just opened where there used to be a nice Chinese restaurant and a parking lot. In the 1980's there was a moratorium on new liquor establishments, once it disappeared the bars began to move in, the first being Sluggers. At this point the only way to curtail it is the nuclear option and shut it down. I am dreading TBOX13

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is TBOX13?

      Delete
    2. Here ya go. http://www.festaparties.com/events/tbox-twelve-bars-of-xmas-aka-12-bars-of-xmas-chicago-pub-crawl/

      And here's a nugget about TBOX12. Of course, this all happened after the "official" hours, so it is in no way connected to TBOX.

      http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20121209/wrigleyville/santa-bar-crawl-stabbing-victim-bled-so-much-it-was-like-friday-13th

      Delete
    3. Drunken frat boys fighting and peeing rank pretty low on the area's list of problems.

      Delete
  8. There is a better chance that Santa Claus literally delivers presents in a few weeks than Wrigleyville going dry. I mean, come on.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What’s being floated here is voting one precinct dry, a 9 square block area, not all of Wrigleyville. The 38th precinct is taking the brunt of all this nonsense. If roughly 375 property owners in that precinct decide it’s time - there is nothing that can be done to stop it - it is an Illinois state law and it has been done in other precincts. If TBOX13 blows up you might be hearing sleigh bells Dec 24.

      Delete
    2. I think I'd bet the mortgage that regardless of the usual TBOX problems, or even increased TBOX problems, it won't happen. Were those other precincts party central? Those businesses bring in WAY too much money to the community to get closed down.

      Plus, even if residents wanted it to happen, and I am in no way convinced more than a few handfuls do, the Cubs (and the Alderman) would flex their muscles to make sure it never did.

      IMO, choosing to live in Wrigleyville is like choosing to live by O'Hare - you know what you're getting.

      Delete
    3. For the uneducated:

      “Enacted after the repeal of Prohibition, the Illinois Liquor Control Act of 1934 (235ILCS 5/9-1 et seq.) gives voters in Chicagoan opportunity to vote on the question whether to prohibit the retail sale of liquor in their precinct.

      Over the years, the local option law has survived constitutional attacks by affected
      licensees and the liquor industry in state and federal courts.”

      Don’t bet the mortgage, I’d hate to see you lose your house.

      Source: http://www.chicagoelections.com/dm/general/document_51.PDF

      BTW This activity is a relatively new phenomenon, started when the big barn bars moved in around 2000 and gets worse every year. Many people have been here way longer than that.

      Delete
    4. No one (including me) is questioning whether the law exists or whether it has ever been used to make communities dry - we are stating that it isn't going to happen here any more than it is going to happen in any other "entertainment" area of the city. But feel free to start the crusade; it's any citizen's right to do so.

      Delete
    5. “We are stating”, are you affiliated with these bars? Me thinks thou dost protest too much. The law has survived all attacks and the target is not the whole entertainment area, just a precinct that has been overrun by of out of control liquor establishments. You have been warned.

      Delete
    6. Give me a break. The only thing I am affiliated with as it relates to those bars is having frequented some when I was 25. And I am *not* attacking the law or questioning its validity. When I say "we," I mean the few other people in this comments section who agree with me. But by all means, continue your pipedream.

      Delete
  9. I agree. It is a government bureaucrat mindset to BAN anything that can cause problems, instead of addressing the problem itself. Those idiots think a BAN on drugs will stop all drug use and a BAN on guns will stop all gun use. Now the want to BAN all bars in Wrigleyville. They never get smarter and never give up with the same old stupid ideas.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Think For A ChangeDec 2, 2013, 2:16:00 PM

      Actually, that was a reader who suggested that, not a government bureaucrat. Our local government bureaucrat has pushed to expanded liquor outlets in Wrigleyville as recently as last week.

      http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20131127/wrigleyville/cubs-wrigley-field-plaza-serve-liquor-under-new-ordinance-from-tunney

      Delete
  10. Not when the drunken frat boys tie up our very limited police resources. During 8 months of the year, robberies and other very serious crimes get show to no responses due to their BS.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I will agree that the drunk Naperville clowns take police away from the more serious crime, but making the neighborhood dry is an over-reaction. The bars simply need to be run more professionally. I'd happily sit on an oversight committee - no conflict of interest as the only bar I can tolerate on Clark is the Irish Oak.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep. Not unlike many of the social service groups, businesses simply need to operate responsibly. That's really not asking too much.

      Delete