Thursday, February 27, 2014

ABRACADABRA: Burglary Attempt Disappears From Statistics

Listen up and take notes. This is how you reduce burglary stats, people.

The gated entrance to tiny California Terrace in Boystown.
Around 6 o'clock last night, a resident in the 700 block of California Terrace—that's the tiny street that sits behind an iron gate on Halsted, south of the Briar Street Theater—returned home to find their apartment had been broken into and burglarized. The forcible entry burglary is recorded in CPD case HX165625.

At 11:30 this morning, the guy who lives directly next door to last night's victim in the same apartment building found that someone tried, but apparently failed, to break into his unit. His case is currently classified as criminal damage to property in case HX166270.

See how they did that? Even though this was almost certainly a failed burglary, the case is being categorized as damage to property. And, just like that, there's one less check mark in the burglary column.
Image: Trulia.com

29 comments:

  1. Nice try in this one but, even though it probably was a burglary attempt it can not be proven that the offender intended to steal anything therefore it goes in as a criminal damage. The report is properly done in this case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The burglar was just clownin' with the second door? What is required to cause a case such as this to be classified as 0630 (attempt) since intent cannot be known by looking at damage?

      Delete
    2. Lol. That's great. They broke in next door, but you don't know what they were intending to do.

      Delete
    3. Again, do you know for absolutely sure that the same person tried to break in? If not 100% sure you can not classify it as any type of burglary.

      Delete
  2. If there is such a charge as attempted burglary, this case would fit. Otherwise damage to criminal property is appropriate, not burglary per se.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Under the law, no, you can not judge intent by damage, as silly as it may seem. I can come up with a bunch of scenarios in which that would screw over the alleged perp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a difference between categorization for policing purposes and criminal charges sought. The policing category of burglary - attempt can be seen properly applied in the 3500 block of Wilton on January 29. Two residences were forcibly entered and burglarized. A third residence, across the street, was damaged in a failed burglary attempt. The first two are categorized as burglary-forcible entry. The third as burglary - attempt forcible entry. Again, the intent is obvious for policing purposes. Refer CPD RD HX132016, HX132013, and HX132174

      Delete
  4. Hmmm....I always thought that building looked quite (almost overly) secure when walking by.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I thought so too..and sort of assume most condos have security alarms.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Right because we have enough police to respond to all residential alarms. Not. Paying ADT 45 a month is great scam. Better to have insurance and take the chance or just leave a radio on. Plus all you have to do is cut the phone line or cable line. And to cellular connections is more money. Better to just buy an ADT sticker on ebay.

      Delete
    2. I have ADT signs and stickers, but never turn on the system as my three 80 pound German Shepherds set off the motion detectors. Best home security system ever. And before the naysayers chime in that burglars throw them drugged food, most of today's burglars are junkies looking for a quick in and out and aren't prepared to deal with barking "police dogs."

      Delete
    3. i.e., you don't need to run faster than the bear, you just need to run faster than your friend.

      or translated: Your home doesn't need to be burglar-proof, it just needs to be more difficult to break into than your neighbor's home.

      Delete
    4. To the one with ADT. Get extra stickers and give them to your neighbors. :)

      Delete
    5. I did. :-). I'm getting the camera package from Costco and installing it facing street and alley. A friend has them and helped the police by giving them footage of a burglar casing his block, then getting into a car.

      Delete
  6. Honest question...does burglary still need to happen at night? Perhaps that's why the 1130 call was classified differently. I also second that I always thought that complex looked overly secured.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, it does not. It's a 24 hour designation.

      Delete
  7. Interesting .. more language parsing it seems, a constant in politics but not helpful to see it in law enforcement = police politics = evading the truth? If they can make it appear in any way that a crime wasn't intended/committed, seems like they'll do it to give more impact to their precious "crime's falling" reports.. Getting old ...

    On another front from CBS Chicago:

    Thieves Break Into Cars Using Mysterious ‘Black Box’

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/02/27/car-thieves-break-into-cars-by-hacking-them-with-black-box/

    Hope they figure that one out quickly.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EB threads from 2012 about this same issue:
      http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime-posts/sep14-car-broken-into-near-grace-st-southport-5336208
      http://chicago.everyblock.com/crime-posts/aug26-crime-3700-block-n-hermitage-ave-5281457

      And an old news story about the same thing: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8830657

      Delete
  8. Ok to clarify, a burglary happened next door we know that because of the damage and missing items. When it comes to the other property I assume door was broken open (damage) and nothing was taken. Unless you can prove that same person who burgled the other place broke in, AND intended to steal items it is only a criminal damage.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not the Westside guyFeb 28, 2014, 1:00:00 AM

    I've been trying to convince the board members at my condo building to spend the money to install security gates for the front of our building. I was convinced this is should a top priority. Now...hmm. I don't know. Anyone have any thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Pretty obviously attempt burglary. First, whatever damage was done to the door indicates that somebody tried to enter--and it's hard to come up with a non-felonious purpose for that. Second, with a successful burglary in the same complex last night, it's pretty simple to infer that the same person was trying to commit another burglary.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I thought CWB made a report about a Honda being "broken into" parked on a residential street in our area and everyone was stumped at how they managed to do it without damage and having the doors locked.

    My car was stolen from Hyde Park right before Christmas a little after 1 in the afternoon on a busy street. No broken glass and I made sure the car was locked twice that day. Thank you for sharing that link above, this method would make a lot of sense. Also, keep an eye out for suspicious people wearing construction type clothing...hart hats or in my case a reflective vest. The thief was stupid enough to speed through a speed camera 30 seconds after stealing the car.

    More information on the black box

    Article:
    http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2288826

    The 2 videos in the article weren't working so here are a few that do:

    http://youtu.be/c4TIYNqmKY0

    http://youtu.be/ZNdDn88jEJ4

    http://youtu.be/duhnbHFWSMk

    http://youtu.be/L4Eknonr_qI





    ReplyDelete
  12. As I stated a week or so ago in another post - this report fabrication has been going on for years. You come home and see pry marks on your front door and half of the molding gone = Damage to property, not attempt burglary, they did not get in. You go to your car and the window is broken and the ignition is popped = Damage to property, not attempt auto theft since they could not get the car started. You are in a restaurant/bar and place your phone in front of you, you turn for a moment and it's gone = classified as lost property. And the list goes on . . .

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mother Jones: Global Warming will result in increased crime

    http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/02/climate-change-murder-rape

    "Looking at the past, we see a strong relationship between temperature and crime," says study author Matthew Ranson, an economist with the policy consulting firm Abt Associates. "We think that is likely to continue in the future."

    Just how much more crime can we expect? Using the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's warming projections, Ranson calculated that from 2010 to 2099, climate change will "cause" an additional "22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny, and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft" in the United States."

    Discuss.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I didn't read the article (yet).
      Do the authors discuss if a harsh winter like 2014 lowers the crime stats?

      Just trying to find a silver lining for this polar vortex.

      Delete
    2. Things are MUCH improved in our neighborhood vs. January and February 2013, Big Jim

      http://crimeinboystown.blogspot.com/2014/01/deep-freeze-january-robberies-down-67.html

      Delete
  14. Police officers infer intent all of the time. Look no further than the crime called "possession of burglary tools." One may be arrested for merely possessing tools that could be used in a burglary under certain circumstances. One need not commit or attempt to commit a burglary to be arrested and/or charged with possession of burglary tools. It's all based on obvious intent. Intent if obvious to all but those who want to be blind in the case of the side by side apartments.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The front entry to this building is very secure, which is why I doubt that the burglars entered though this access point. They likely entered through the back, which can be found connected to a long courtyard that lies quietly at an entrance at 727 Briar Place. At the end of this courtyard is where the buildings connect and are separated by a mere fence. This back fence can easily be jumped and also contains a door gate which is "locked" but very easily opened. This spot is much more hidden than the Halsted street gate. This way onto the property, though, would have to be known by the offender, which would lead me to believe there was a motive, and not just a random choosing. Perhaps it was someone who lives in the building, or someone who has visited the building in the past.

    ReplyDelete