Sunday, August 19, 2007

Sidamo Burglarized Again

Sidamo Coffee & Tea (417 H Street) was burglarized again (the first robbery occurred on August 8th) the night before last. The most recent burglary occurred around 10:30pm and unable to have someone come out to replace the glass at night the owner was forced to sleep inside his store to keep it safe. Here's an anonymous statement from a reader who was on the scene when the police arrived:
Walking down H Street about 45 minutes ago, I heard the ominous sound of a security alarm and the dreadful sight of a cop arriving at Sidamo. As he went to interview Kenfe and someone who I assumed to be an employee, I walked past and noticed that the entire front door window panel was smashed in, lying inside the cafe. I obviously minded my own business and did not try to ascertain any other details. But this is more terrible news for one of the few visible, honest businesses on the block.

Either word's gotten out among the thugs that Sidamo is an easy target, or someone is seriously trying to demoralize Kenfe and Mimi. They really need to invest in a security camera yesterday, and perhaps a booby trap.

I will be there tomorrow to show my support and hope our community will continue to come out in force to do the same. Take care, and stay safe out there.

69 comments:

Anonymous said...

That side of H St is dead after dark. The sooner it gets developed the harder it will get for these thugs to get any with this and the more resilient business will become. The sooner we stop screwing around with developers about their plans being to tall, square, round are whatever does not fit with some ideal "master plan" the better for shopowners like Kenfe and Mimi. They put their lives into this shop while others stymy much needed change on the street. Our patronage alone will not sustain their business if these crimes continue.

If Main Streets (?) grants are still available I suggest Sidamo gets nominated (again?) to help afford better security. Another police camera like the one on H/8St would also be a nice gesture of support from the District for that side of H St.

Anonymous said...

bars on the windows.

When we moved in we got broken into twice until we put bars on the doors...

Anonymous said...

I live about 2 blocks away and have never been broken into. I have 4 doors (on the basement and ground levels) that are made mostly glass. I have only had one thing stolen out of the backyard....something I should have kept locked up. That being said, I have only been living here about a year and a half.

Anonymous said...

Better yet, get one of those protective rolldown metal shields like the Pug and H. Street Martini Lounge. That should not cost much. Besides, the cost of the metal rollown should be offset by the insurance savings.

Alan Kimber, Commissioner, ANC 6c05 said...

This is really unfortunate, and I am really glad that Kenfe, Mimi and their employees are all safe. Hopefully, Sidamo will be able to get better security, and MPD will catch the lowlifes who are trying to bring our community down.


As to the comments by ncaphill, you are completely mistaken about development on this end of H Street being held up.

The project for the North side of the 300 block of H Street is fully approved, and the delay in starting the project is on the part of the developer. This is not to say that the developer is "at fault" in any way--as a practical matter, they cannot begin until they have identified a grocery client for the corner of 3rd & H Street. The delay has nothing to do with the ANC--in fact, it is part of why there is a group working to help persuade Trader Joe's to commit to the site.

The proposal for the South side of the 200 block of H Street is not delayed in any way. The developer has stated all along that they will not begin the project until the 3rd building of the SEC complex on 2nd Street is completed. This means that *at best*, construction on the 200 block will not begin before 2009 (the sign for the 3rd building says "occupancy 2009").

No developer has been able to buy up the entire South side of the 300 block of H Street yet, because the owners of the corner lots at 3rd and 4th Streets are holding out, expecting to get some unrealistic jackpot for properties.

Nothing is stoping the owners of the many vacant and abandoned properties in the 400 and 500 blocks of H Street from doing something productive with their run-down properties. To the contrary, working with Tommy Wells office and the Commissioners in ANC 6C and 6A, I have formed a vacant property task force to put pressure on these owners to do something with their properties--and to ensure that they are taxed at the higher vacant property rate in the meantime.

So, the fact that the ANC and community groups are working to ensure that the development on the 200 block of H Street is the best it can be and contributes to the neighborhood has absolutely no bearing on the pace of development along H Street. Rather, we are doing our duty of representing our constituents for the betterment of our neighborhood, and in fact, doing everything we can to encourage development along the rest of our end of H Street.

I hope this helps you become informed about the situation.

Best,
Alan Kimber
ANC Commissioner, 6C05

YL said...

I talked to Mimi on Sunday morning, and she said the robbers broke the window and then ran when the alarm went off. No losses this time other than the window (again) and a sleepless night for Kenfe.

Several people have mentioned crime cameras as a solution. I'm not sure about everyone else in this neighborhood, but I find the crime cameras creepy and Orwellian. Also, studies of crime cameras have shown very little effect on total crime -- at best the criminals move to non-surveilled areas. I would much rather see our tax money invested in proven methods of crime prevention like beat cops and improved lighting.

Of course, if Kenfe and Mimi want to put up their own camera to monitor their own window, that's another story...

And to add one more thing to Mr. Kimber's note -- Pap and Petey's will open eventually on the corner of 5th and H, bringing more foot traffic and life to that block after dark.

Anonymous said...

There's also the possibility of Kenfe and Mimi getting a camera system with a dvr for themselves...Kenfe asked me if I knew of any less expensive systems...the $1000 price tag on the ones he had seen were a bit high.
Anyone who has expertise, experience, knowledge about these things, esp. if you know of an inexpensive system that works, stop by and tell him.

Alan Kimber, Commissioner, ANC 6c05 said...

yl jogged my memory on another upcoming addition--the one story blue building at 400 H Street is going to be a health food place, possibly with a smoothie bar. At one point it was mentioned that this would be a 24-hour operation, but I'm not certain. Here is more information on the company:

http://www2.fueledup.com:8080/fuel/

Best,
Alan Kimber
Commissioner, ANC 6C05

Anonymous said...

maybe we need an around the clock neighborhood watch type thing? like people in groups of 3-4 sort of circling the block near the place in the early morning hours? perhaps folks could make that area correspond with their morning jog? just thinking aloud here.

Anonymous said...

I am a former H street resident (now landlord) and read this blog all the time to keep in tune with what is going on in the neighborhood. I showed this post to my techie boyfriend, who offered to install security cameras for Sidamo free of charge. I think they would just have to purchase the equipment. If anyone knows the proprieters, you can have them email me at sasha@caveatconsultants.com.

YL said...

re: inexpensive camera for Sidamo.

The cafe already has highspeed wireless (which I am everlastingly grateful for after my power went out last week while I was working from home). There are cheap cameras that are battery operated and transmit over the wireless network.

I don't know too much about these, but they are used as "nannycams" and webcams, and are advertised all over the place.

Alan Kimber, Commissioner, ANC 6c05 said...

Sasha,

I have an extra Motorola system that I am going to sell them for less than my original cost (it's just been sitting around for about a year, so might as well).

The install is pretty easy, so I'm going to try and get that done with them tonight. I'll send you a separate email as well, in case your boyfriend would like to meet us there tonight to help.

Best,
Alan Kimber
ANC Commissioner, 6C05

Anonymous said...

Until the area gets serious with developers and demands real security measures this sort of thing is going to happen.

And, yes, that means camera surveillance.

I'd rather feel 'creepy' than mugged or shot in the head.

And if you think you aren't already under surveillance in public spaces you are kidding yourself.

Video surveillance, plus a real walking-talking security force on H Street.

Everything else is just an after-the-fact band-aid or too little to be effective strip-wide.

YL said...

Hillman:

I understand your concern about crime -- I live here too -- but the evidence on the effectiveness of video cameras just isn't there. Just as we exercise caution before we let the government listen to our phone calls or track our Internet activity in the name of "security," we need to pause here before we implement privacy-invasive technologies that may not be that useful.

In case you think cameras are not privacy-invasive, check out the stories from the UK of operators selling videos of women undressing in windows (unknowingly visible from the street) or ask the patrons of DC gay bars who were blackmailed by the cops who secretly watched them come and go.

I follow this area fairly closely, and if you are aware of any new studies or reports that shed new light on crime cameras, please post it. In the meantime, I will continue to urge tried-and-true methods of crime prevention, like keeping the streets clean and well-lit.

A great resource for learning about this issue is the Constitution Project's Liberty and Security Initiative, which published a report last year on this topic (full disclosure: I helped write the report).

Anonymous said...

I'll take street crime in London over street crime in DC anyday.

We have no reasonable expectation of privacy walking down a commercial strip like H Street.

As for gay bar patrons being harassed in DC, that was not a case of videotaping. That was a case of DC cops casing gay bars in person.

I myself had my license plate info recorded at a gay bar in Virginia back in my youth. Nary a camera in site. Just cops writing down license plates. Apparently totally legal.

But if you really think that just better lighting and relying on MPD to make H Street safe is the answer then you will be sadly disappointed.

Your suggestions of keeping the streets clean and well lit are terrific first steps. But in other cities they would be followed up with effective police patrolling and proactive police work. In DC, that's just not going to happen.

Anonymous said...

yl, just for clarification cameras don't stop crime, but they can be highly effective at catching and prosecuting criminals, often times providing the only evidence proving that the criminal is in fact guilty and taking them off the street. Capturing and convicting criminals of the crimes that they commit is the ultimate crime deterrent. For example the Ledroit Park Market robbery shown on You Tube. Cameras can also help make sure that you are prosecuting the right person.

Anonymous said...

Alan - Thank you for the update on the development status. The status of the Dreyfus project as described on your blog gave me the impression that mediation was still in progress. I am glad to hear these issues have been resolved and the project has a green light from the neighborhood.

Anonymous said...

this is why it's important to lobby trader joe's. the project won't go forward until a store signs more than just a letter of intent. harris teeter is set up in NoMa, so that's out. trader joe's is in talks as we chat on this forum. if you haven't signed the petition or emailed their management, give it a shot. the sooner they get a tenant, the faster the project will start movinhg forward.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry but I just had to balk at this comment:

"I'll take street crime in London over street crime in DC anyday. [...] We have no reasonable expectation of privacy walking down a commercial strip like H Street."

FYI, London is the most highly surveilled city in the world, with estimates at over 200,000 closed circuit video cameras, almost all of which can be centrally monitored by the government. London truly is Big Brother. DC is not in any danger of going there yet.

I would only add that if the gun ban in DC is now overturned as advertised for being unconstitutional, it may be possible for Kenfe and Mimi to purchase a firearm to protect their lives and livelihood. A big dog might help too, but they can take a while to grow up. Yes, you can call me a barbarian for suggesting such measures, but it's how merchants have been defending themselves and their businesses for thousands of years.

Anonymous said...

What about the Guardian Angels? You know those guys with the red berets - I'm not sure how the program works but the reality is the police can't be on every block in the city all the time so maybe if we have the angles patrol H street late at night (especially around some of the newer establishments that the criminals seem to be targeting) it would deter some of the crime. This alone won't solve all our problems (of course) but when coupled with the police presence and tigher security controls (cameras, better lighting, etc), it may help close the gap.

inked said...

Hey, it's a coffee shop guys. Big dogs & guns? I also yanked one comment (10:00pm) that clearly crossed the line. I'll remind people to please keep it clean (even if the language wasn't obscene the idea behind it was totally inappropriate & if the sentiment expressed became reality, the owners wouldn't be able to own their own shop).

Anonymous said...

Video cameras are only to be feared if you break the law. They are a method of capturing criminals and, eventually, deterring crime. Orwellian theories are a moot point unless you have something to be worried about.

Anonymous said...

I won't go so far as to say there's nothing to fear from video cameras. I'd have a problem with technology that would, say, be able to peer into private residences.

But on a commercial strip in public space there simply is no expectation of privacy.

And video should only be one part of the solution. Just as important is actual physical patrolling of the strip. And since we all know MPD won't do it, it should be up to the big developers and nightclub owners to have it done. These are the folks that stand to make tremendous amounts of money off of H Street. Hiring security would be a miniscule amount of money compared to what is being made off of the strip.

Other smaller steps can help as well. Others have mentioned lighting and street cleanliness. Lighting in particular is quite helpful. In my mind any business that refuses to adequately light their area both during business hours and overnight doesn't deserve my business. If they care so very little for my safety that they won't spring for a few bucks for lighting then I'm not sure why I owe them my business.

In short, what I'm saying is the city and MPD aren't going to be of much help. Sorry to be so cynical, but that's the way it's been in DC for decades, so we should expect the same in the future.

If developers and bar/restaurant/business owners want our support they should be willing to provide adequate security.

Anonymous said...

hillman verrry afraid of video camera make intrusion to his home, after he start nightclub with no permission from authorities.

we can solve this by move club to home of venerable alan kimber. he commissioner so he give a document for make it ok to make a sexxy dance!

chinqueh! we make a lots of money and hire my cousins for patrol h street!

Hill Rat said...

If developers and bar/restaurant/business owners want our support they should be willing to provide adequate security.

Isn't that why we're paying the city usurious taxes on everything? Every time you do anything in this city you have to pay them. Want to improve your property? Gotta pay for permits & plans. Want to start a business in that improved property? Pay for a business license. And it goes on and on from there.

Developers and bar/restaurant/business owners have already paid for security many times over.

Anonymous said...

I agree that if the owners were able to legally have a gun a burglar would think twice about trying to steal $100 from a cash register. I personally can't wait for the DC handgun ban to be removed so we can start protecting ourselves and stop relying on the MPD.

Anonymous said...

Rat:

Yes, that is why we pay taxes. But we have to be realistic about this. This is DC. Just paying taxes doesn't guarantee you reasonable police response. And it certainly doesn't guarantee actual proactive policing, which is what H Street desperately needs.

We have some terrific individual DC cops. And I don't mean to slight them, as they work hard.

But the hard reality is that MPD and the various city agencies that should be working together to improve safety all over the city (including H) just are never going to be able to provide a safe environment.

Will it be 'as safe as' other areas, like say U Street? Maybe. But I really don't think that's the goal we should strive for. There's a lot of crazy crime on U Street still, even though people up there deny it.

It'd be great to be able to hold H Street out as the safer alternative. And it really is a TINY amount of money, given the massive amounts of money being made off this strip.

If someone pays $45 million for one property on H (as the guy that bought the south end of 6th Street.... or is it 5th.... I always forget), then giving the community a benefit of paying for security services for five years is a tiny fraction of overall cost. And it would pay off many times over, as H Street could tout it's private security (in reality, off duty DC cops would be best) and other safety measures.

Plus a parking garage would be ideal. I know some merchants are trying hard for this. It's something the city should do, and make very safe (lit up like a whorehouse, controlled entrances, video surveillance, etc.).

They could integrate it nicely, having underground parking, then retail on the ground floor, then residential above.

But if we're thinking that MPD is going to make H Street safe we are kidding ourselves, our huge tax bills notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 9:58, I too welcome the day when DC's tyrants get their @$$e$ handed to them by the SCOTUS vis-a-vis handguns. But even now, as long they are law-abiding citizens the owners of Sidamo could get a big 'ol shotgun for self defense. Sadly, this being DC, they could not lawfully use it to protect their property. Even in the event of self defense shooting, they would likely be charged with any number of crimes including: loading the gun, and firing it without the express written consent of the chief of police (it would be a rare thug indeed that whated while they obtained that!).

One of the hardest parts of living in DC is accepting that it will be basically run for the benefit of the criminal class, and any attempt to fight in defense of your own life, liberty, or property will be severly punished.

Mr. Other Upper NW said...

"I agree that if the owners were able to legally have a gun a burglar would think twice about trying to steal $100 from a cash register."

Yes, because restaurants, convenience stores, coffee shops et al. NEVER get robbed in places where guns are legal.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand exactly how a gun would have done anything to prevent a middle-of-the-night breakin, unless you'd like poor Kenfe to sleep in his shop every night. You can have all the guns you want (um, well, no you CAN'T, unless the right wing nutjobs get their way), but if you are not in your home/shop at the time of a burglary it's not gonna do you much good.

Or if merely the FEAR that the owner might be sleeping on the floor of his shop all night is proposed as sufficient to scare off a thief, then a nice little laminated sign saying "Danger: angry owner with gun sleeping under table #3 all night, every night" should suffice to keep the place safe until H Street looks and feels like Georgetown.

It's a break-in, folks. A little investment in some real security by the owners is a reasonable thing to expect (just as the $45m developer might be expected to invest in local security, surely the shopowner should take the same level of interest in his OWN property!).

Without that, something like this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone with any sense of current-day H Street.

It's sad, it's wrong, it's unfair - but it's reality for all of living in the area (and I live 2 blocks from Sidamo).

Oh, and for the folks using this as a chance to make their political points about "big brother", think back to the 2nd (failed) London train bombings. Do you think the culprits would have been caught without the extensive video network London runs? Most likely not, and instead of being in jail they would have been more than capable of trying it again, perhaps with more success. Don't let your worries about privacy blind you to the fact that it is the privacy of the criminals that we all need to worry about. There is little difference between a human "neighborhood watch" and a full-time tells-no-lies video camera doing the same thing. Public space should be safe for all of us.

Anonymous said...

in washington, swords, knives, bowguns, bow and arrow, blowguns, pellet guns, and stun guns are all ok.

i'm sure someone with a little creativity could booby trap that place and do a heckuva lot more damage than a gun...

Anonymous said...

Poo Poo:

Unfortunately, booby trapping your establishment is against the law, and may result in both criminal and civil charges being brought against the establishment owners. Especially in the DC courts.

Anonymous said...

"I live 2 blocks from Sidamo"

Hi Neighbor! I live two blocks from Sidamo too!

I like your sign idea, but I'd change the wording for the one in my window:

"Dear home invasion robbers, rapists, and assorted thugs: I respect my neighbors' anti-gun stance. Accordingly, I promise not to use my guns to defend them if I hear blood-curdling screams late at night. Thank You, Signed 'Right Wing Nut-Job'"

BTW: I don't care if you don't 'understand' how lawful gun ownership and the threat of armed self defense serves as a deterrent, because... here's the important part: My civil rights aren't yours to take in any event.

Anonymous said...

hillman:

even when it's closed to the public? if i booby trap my house to catch .... mice, is PETA gonna take me to court?

on a more serious note, the children's museum project has had a hired nightwatchman for about a year now.

i know in brasil, neighbors and/or businesses all chip in for a nightwatchman/woman to walk around the hood blowing a whistle to let folks know he/she is around. you'd think that somebody would come up with an informal BID like the businesses up the street.

i'd gladly chip in $20 a month for someone to walk around in a t-shirt with a big SECURITY sign stamped on the front, and a personal taser in pocket....

Anonymous said...

As for the 'Camera' angle (pun intended) we wouldn't need the cameras at all if we actually kept known criminals locked up. But then I'd hardly expect the DC government to abandon one of their most reliable voter blocks.

Incidentally, despite being a right-wing nut-job, I support restoring the rights of reformed criminals. But here's the catch: I fully support restoring ALL civil rights, including those acknowledged by the 2nd Amendment. What YOU need to ask yourself is this: If you have someone who you wouldn't trust with a gun, how can you (in good conscience) call them 'rehabilitated' and release them.

Make no mistake: DC has high crime rates for one fundamental reason: We don't take criminals seriously and are happy to tolerate unacceptable behavoir - until that changes, DC has no hope.

inked said...

Poo Poo,
a booby trap that seeks to maim or kill (as opposed to one that simply traps an intruder until police arrive) is definitely illegal.

Mr. Other Upper NW said...

"I don't care if you don't 'understand' how lawful gun ownership and the threat of armed self defense serves as a deterrent"

I don't want to turn this thread--which is filled with many good ideas for how the fine folks at Sidamo can better protect themselves and their establishment--into a gun law debate, but I see this statement made constantly, and very little offered up as evidence to support it. There are numerous cities where guns are legal--some even with concealed carry laws--that have crime as bad, worse, or nearly on par with D.C.'s. Whether or not the owners of Sidamo could legally maintain a firearm in their establishment would likely have little-to-no effect on crimes of this nature.

The issue is not accessibility to guns, or lack thereof--it's about a combination of increased efforts by the MPD to catch criminals, city government making efforts to deter crime and promote positive development in neighborhoods, and citizens and business owners taking proactive steps to make their neighborhoods unattractive and inhospitable to criminals.

I'm of the belief that striking down the District's handgun ban will have little effect one way or the other--neither in preventing crime nor in creating it. I'm far more concerned with the seeming lack of attention/efforts of the MPD in response to crimes such as burglaries, muggings and thefts.

Anonymous said...

To anonymous 1:43 from anoymous 1:08:

Hi neighbor! Several points:

1) I never called GUN OWNERS "right wing nut-jobs" - I called those that argue for unlimited gun rights ("to have all the guns you want" was the term I used) and that was a off-side, tongue-in-cheek reference to a very limited section of the gun lobby.

2) Who said anything about being "anti-gun" ?? I SUPPORT gun rights - I OWN a gun, as a matter of fact, for exactly the reasons you say. Why you saw my reference to "right wing nut-jobs" and looked in the mirror and saw yourself I don't know, but so be it. No one's arguing about your precious weapon (well, *I'm* not at least). Think gentle, calm, soothing thoughts. Exhale.

3) My point, if you took the time to focus on my statments rather than being busy formulating defenses of your own to imaginary threats coming to take your piece, was that gun ownership (and all the politics thereof) is IRRELEVANT to a nighttime burglary of a shop in which no one is actually present in to pull the trigger.

Finally, in regards to the statement that we "wouldn't need the cameras at all if we actually kept known criminals locked up" - what better way to KNOW who is a criminal than to catch them on film, in the act, so we can recognize them and go get 'em! There are thousands of people sneaking around in the dead of night who we could "lock up" if we had only known who they were and what they had done. A midnight breakin will likely have no witness unless poor Kenfe is sleeping on the floor of his coffee shop. A street camera might have caught the guy in the act, or at least narrowed it down to a few people who passed by the camera at a particular hour of the night.

It's understandable under the present administration that even right wing nut-jobs would feel so worried about their civil rights, but I hope you relax before all that tenseness results in you pulling that trigger over some slight offense. Which reminds me, I've been meaning to talk with you about that stench emanating from your yard, neighbor - might I suggest a duel at 20 paces to resolve this?

Anonymous said...

I live about 4 blocks down close to E St. Almost everyday, there is an MPD car (or two) parked at the nearby Quik-E-Mart. The officers never get out of their cars (except to get a juice in the store). I find this interesting b/c MPD seems to be living up to the community reputation that MPD NEVER gets out of their cars. I also find it interesting in that even if they did stay in the cars, they could be doing a whole lot more good (ie, deterring crime) just by parking their cars up on H St. If they actually did foot patrols that would be amazing/borderline miraculous.

I must say that I've been down H St. more than a few times since moving into the neighborhood, and everytime I've observed one or more people A.) urinating in public, B.) Littering, C.) Cussing others out loudly; D.) Drunk; or E.) some combination of all of the above. It seems to me given this poor state, people need to be just as focused on cleaning up criminal/drunkard element on the street as they are on bringing in new businesses. Write the mayor, march down the street, start a community watch, get a bullhorn and yell back at that bullhorn guy on 7th street until he goes away! (j/k on the last one -- but you get the drift -- get involved!)

Just my two cents.

Anonymous said...

inked & hillman-

i was thinking more of stuff like in that movie "home alone". i'd never advocate maiming or killing a person. i was just curious, because i know that in many states, if someone is on your property threatening you, you can pretty much shoot him/her. i remember a case like that when i was living in san diego.

i know there is no good answer, and the sort of 'good ideas' cost lots of money....

and the cops can't do it all....

no wonder the owners are so blase about the break ins.

there *really* isn't anything anyone can do! :o/

inked said...

Poo Poo,
the law makes a big distinction between setting a booby trap with a shotgun & standing there with a shot gun when someone breaks into your home. Some states (like Texas, I beleive) are so called "Make My Day" States, and they have different rules for when you can use deadly force.

Anonymous said...

I'm no lawyer, but I believe DC requires that you have absolutely no other recourse before you shoot or harm an intruder. That is, you are actually legally required to attempt to flee the property before you use potentially deadly force.

If someone else knows better please let us know. But that's been my understanding.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 3:01

You mention an unsavory criminal street element and the DC cops that refuse to actually get out and patrol.

That's been my impression as well.

It's great that we are getting new businesses. But the crime and the street bums and all the rest are still there. And if anyone thinks they will magically go away just because we get trendy bars or nice restaurants is fooling themselves.

You are also correct when you state that merchants in other areas do pay for additional security.

I see no reason why H Street merchants and developers couldn't do the same. The amount of money they stand to make off current residents and new residents is simply staggering. Surely they can do something to actually provide at least some additional security.

Anonymous said...

Or, strictly from a business point of view, developers could do nothing, wait for a few high profile examples of people getting shot or jacked on H Street, and then sit back and watch their empty condos and restaurants lose money hand over fist.

But pretending there isn't a problem isn't much of an answer.

Anonymous said...

Hillman,

In response to your post, I was not advocating a private security force (although if that was provided by developers I'm all for it). I just think if you wait for the developers, you might as well be waiting for godot.

I was merely trying to make the point that individuals in the community (myself included) need to do more than post on this blog, or buy handguns for that matter, in order to rectify the criminal/drunk element on the street. To that end, maybe we should use this blog to exchange ideas about what community watch-type organizations are out there (or if H St. residents are interested in starting one) -- or how we can put pressure on MPD or the Mayor's office to put more police presence on H Street? I'd like to volunteer for something like that...I just don't know how!

Anonymous said...

Neighborhood watch programs are great for residential areas, but they aren't really well suited for commercial strips. Private neighborhood residents can't really confront or deal with day-to-day criminal activities that you find on commercial strips.

And pressuring local politicians for more police is great. But, honestly, that's only going to do so much good.

Many if not all of these developers must get local approval, through zoning, ANC, etc. And often they make offers of neighborhood amenities in return for zoning variances, etc.

I'm just saying that instead of asking for some tiny 'green space' or such we should start asking for real security measures.

inked said...

Hillman, I don't know the particular law in DC. Generally being in fear for your life is sufficient excuse to use deadly force during a home invasion. You don't generally have a duty to retreat in the US.

Anonymous said...

"Hi Neighbor" here again...

We should go shooting sometime. We can invite some of the 'antis' out to show them the ins & outs of lawful ownership & responsible use. Education is the best way to address ignorance after all - far too many people out there who associate guns only with the negative - it would be nice to address it.
This, of course, is if you are a law-abiding/legal/truthful gun owner. You may have noticed, there are a lot of "I'm a gun owner, BUT..." type stories in the press lately. It's the latest ploy of the gun banners - the 'BUT' being one more nudge down the slippery slope.

"Mr. 14th & You" makes good points all around and, statistically, is correct. There is no blindingly clear evidence one way or the other. Which, to my mind, makes it all the more clear that our rights shall not be infringed. Not that it matters, as I hold these truths to be self evident as it were...

As for the "Right-Wing nut-job" thing...well, I would have thought it obvious that such a sign as I proposed would be counter productive. No sense advertising for theives after all.

That said, the "Right-Wing nut-job" would seem to fit. Because I do advocate for unlimited gun rights. Proudly. Because:

A) If guns (of any type) cause crime, all of mine must be defective.

B) Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my guns.

C) You really don't need to worry about the guy who wants/owns 50 guns (even Class III). Personally, I worry about the guy who only wants ONE.

In the end, DC is 30+ years worth of proof that gun prohibition doesn't work, and any resources spent on it are resourced diverted from something that might work:
Ban Criminals, Not Guns.

Really, I don't mind the 'gun nut' appelation - I find it analogous to certain people making the N-word their own. And, strictly speaking, I'm more Libertarian nut job anyway. Right-leaning perhaps, but what with the Repubs spending money like sailors on shore leave... It's hard to stand behind them.

As for the broad attacks on civil rights, I would encourage everyone to remember that it was a Democrat controlled House and Senate that just voted in a new/ stronger 'Patriot' act. Kinda hard to place all the blame for that on the Wignuts. It's too bad that neither party respects the Bill of Rights. It does truely sadden me that both treat it like it's pick and choose...I'm guessing that's one thing we can all agree on. (well, except for the camera advocates!)

Anonymous said...

Dear Anonynous 5:48,
Loved your post. I'm a gun owning Libertarian nut job from a block away. Glad to know we are neighbors.

Anonymous said...

so, according to inked, it's ok to sleep in your store, and wait for someone to break in before you 'shoot' them with a 'legal' weapon (i.e. pellet gun, bow and arrow, etc.).

cuz, that's threat of force, etc.

but you can't secure your store any other way.

just pop in a camera and hope that MPD works it out.

eh.. academically, that's fine.

the last time i called the cops because a hijacked car crashed into my neighbors car, they showed up 35-40 minutes late because they were in SE trying to stop some father from throwing his baby out the window.

i'm not a gun freak, let along a right winger, but there has to be some sense of security.

i'm not sure what you do for security, but i have a few alarms in my house. AND i don't make a lot of money. but it does provide for security when i'm not home or sleeping.

if you don't know the law in DC (maybe you'll take the bar elsewhere in the U.S.), maybe you should look into it as a resident and a commisioner).

emotional and personal ethical points of view are fine, but we need to try and solve these problems as a community.

maybe you can reccommend a lawyer to the owners of sidamo.

they may need one.

that would be cool of you, while you're here in dc...

Anonymous said...

I am watching the news and there is a story on about a man in Spotsylvania County who shot his two daughters one them died. I'm not saying that DC residents should be denied the right to own a gun. Just stating another side of the argument. Criminals dont't necesarily have to have a criminal record.

In a Utopian world, only law abiding citizens would be able obtain guns to protect their property and deter crimials. We don't live in Utopia. The way I see it, would be robbers or whatever would bring their own guns with them for protection. They would be able to do this because they would have the right to carry a gun if they had no criminal record or they would have their friends or family (with no criminal record) get one for them because they have the right to own a gun in DC.

Anonymous said...

Criminals already carry guns in DC. Law abiding citizens do not. This imbalance gives criminals the power.

Mr. Other Upper NW said...

"Criminals already carry guns in DC. Law abiding citizens do not. This imbalance gives criminals the power."

Do you really think that legalizing handguns in D.C. would be a significant detriment to criminal activity? Do you really think that the majority of criminals currently committing crimes involving firearms would be deterred from committing--or attempting--their crimes with the knowledge that handgun possession was legal in the District?

I'm not asking to provoke a gun debate, it's an honest question.

And 30+ years of a District handgun ban proves nothing--well, it doesn't prove any more than the legalization of gun possession and concealed-carry laws in other jurisdictions prove that gun possession is not a significant crime deterrant. That's why I think focusing on overturning the District's handgun ban is placing efforts in the wrong places. Fine, overturn the ban, allow District residents to purchase and own handguns. But when that happens, and we're still reading stories on a daily basis of women getting raped, people getting shot, and store owners being burglarized, we'll be right back where we are now. Legalizing handgun possession in and of itself might serve to prevent a small number of crimes, but it's merely one brick in a very large wall. There's no need for an incident such as the Sidamo burglaries to turn into a First Amendment debate.

Mr. Other Upper NW said...

Er, make that "Second Amendment" debate. Clearly, there are no First Amendment issues going on here. :)

Anonymous said...

"Do you really think that the majority of criminals currently committing crimes involving firearms would be deterred from committing--or attempting--their crimes with the knowledge that handgun possession was legal in the District?"

Possibly. But, must it be a majority of criminals that are deterred or just a statistically significant amount?

Anonymous said...

"Do you really think that legalizing handguns in D.C. would be a significant detriment to criminal activity?"

My gut feeling is yes. But I'm not honestly woried about 'significant' or not. I'm worried about the one thug that chooses to accost me. My personal belief is that trying to apply statistics to a social problem tends towards being a fools errand. That said, If you go in for that sort of stuff, I would encourage you to go to the CATO.org website and search out some of David Kopel's stuff. "Trust the People: The Case Against Gun Control" is a good place to start. Follow up with reading some of Gary Klecks work. Both make a persuasive argument and back it up with research. Ultimately, it's a question of my rights, not criminals' actions. Even if there was no deterent effect whatsoever, I still have the right to effective self defense. Even if there was no crime, I'd still have guns for target shooting.

"Fine, overturn the ban, allow District residents to purchase and own handguns. But when that happens, and we're still reading stories on a daily basis of women getting raped, people getting shot, and store owners being burglarized, we'll be right back where we are now"

No we won't, we'll be in a position where the law-abiding have a fighting chance - which we don't now have. And we'll be free: A man with a gun is a citizen. A man denied a gun is a subject.

No matter what any fence sitters out there might think of the deterrent effect, I offer a little mental exercise/ something to ponder:

If you magically took every single gun 'off the streets', DC would still have a crime problem... but if you magically took every criminal off the streets, DC would not have a gun problem.

If you want to FEEL safer, you can ban guns.

If you want to BE safer, you need to ban criminals.

Ban Criminals, Not Guns.

Anyone out there who wants quality facts on, or history of, gun control I would direct to "www.guncite.com" and "www.gunscholar.org", they are good alternatives to the partisan hysterics found elsewhere.

Anonymous said...

I can't resist posting on this -- the Post did a story looking at juvenile gun-related arrests and they're *down* since the ban -- because JDs broke into houses and stole legally obtained guns or stole them from relatives.
That's one group I'm glad doesn't have them.

Mr. Other Upper NW said...

"We'll be in a position where the law-abiding have a fighting chance - which we don't now have."

Sorry, but that is simply a preposterous statement.

And in the interests of not turning thi sinto a Second Amendment debate, that's all I'll say.

Anonymous said...

I was the original "anonymous" who mentioned the dog and the gun. Seems like a lot of good discussion here. I'm really happy to see some people have similar points of view.

Honestly, however, I wasn't even thinking about the ban on handguns. I was/am more concerned about owning a longarm, such as a rifle or shotgun, which is probably the best way to defend your home or business.

While technically legal to possess a longarm, practically speaking the city makes it nearly illegal. Not only does it have to be stored unloaded, but also disassembled. As soon as you assemble and load it to protect yourself, which is already highly impractical, you have made yourself a felon.

Once more, you are required to register a longarm with the MPD within a few days of bringing it into the district (this in itself seems rather unconstitutional). If you don't register it in time, it's illegal.

Lastly, the BATF considers firearms made before 1899 to be antiques. As long as proof of age is provided, you can legally buy and sell them without paperwork. This is a federal law. DC however ignores this and considers legal antiques to be the equivalent of modern firearms. So don't think of hanging your old rifle over the fireplace unless it's disassembled in pieces!

I used to dabble in collecting old guns from WWI and WWII, but when I moved to DC, I couldn't even get any of my former suppliers to send me non-gun items to the district like cleaning supplies, slings, or gunsmithing screwdrivers. They flat out refused to ship to DC because they said they would potentially be harrassed.

So aside from the whole handgun issue, there's a lot more harm DC has been doing to reasonable lawful people. It's really too bad. I wonder how many WWII vets and windows with old German Mausers and Japanese Arisakas sitting in their closets brought back from the war are now technically considered felons by the MPD.

Anonymous said...

hmmmm....

i should be in the business of fabricating guns that can be assembled and disassembled in two short movements.

i'd make a fortune in dc alone!

Anonymous said...

"you are required to register a longarm with the MPD within a few days of bringing it into the district"

Actually, the law says "immediately". That said, the Gun Registration Unit has rather limited hours, so that is effectively impossible. You essentially have to take a day off work to go down there.

Incidentally, for new purchases, (as opposed to arms owned prior to moving to DC) they need to be registered BEFORE you take possesion from a dealer, i.e. they need to be registered BEFORE they are brought in to DC.

Another comical aside: There is no list of banned guns, and the officers in the GRU (ironic abbr huh?) will not tell you beforehand if a gun is even registerable. So you actually have to buy the gun (without taking delivery) before finding out if the MPD will allow you to register it.

Also, there is a poster in the GRU offices that says certain "characteristics" are grounds for denial even though those charachteristics are never referenced by the DC code. I'm thinking specifically of "pistol grips". The net effect is that certain shotguns expressly configured for turkey and/or deer hunting will not be registered, even though they very clearly meet ALL legal requirements outlined in the DC code.

The Gun Registration Unit has little regard for the law, and none for the rights of the citizens.

Anonymous said...

It is a fact that criminals do not obey the gun ban. Criminals will keep their tactical advantage due to the gun ban.

Criminals will have firearms and any number of laws to stop that will not work. Why? Criminals do not obey the law.

The only people affected by the gun ban are law abiding citizens, period.

Hence the saying...where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns.

Anonymous said...

"B) Ted Kennedy's car killed more people than my guns."

Or that unstoppable killing machine, Laura Bush.

Anonymous said...

I'm a gun lover, having grown up with guns. And I'm not so sure that I'd be too upset if the DC gun ban were overturned, as our police department is so bad.

But I've got two words for those that think overturning the gun ban will make our fair city a crime-free utopia.

Ok, three words.

Richmond. New Orleans.

Both are in the middle of gun-happy states, and both allow handgun ownership, pretty much unlimited.

And both have crime similar to DC's. Sometimes worse.

On the flip side, NYC has very low crime, especially compared to DC, Richmond, or New Orleans.

I'm not saying there aren't other factors at play.

I just think it's sortof BS for gun ban overthrow advocates to claim we'll all automatically be safer if we get guns.

But I do understand the concept that the most important statistic is the one that happens to you personally, and I wouldn't mind knowing that I had a weapon in my home when some loser thug breaks in.

Anonymous said...

This Sidamo thread has gotten out of hand. Until there is more foot traffic on that end, they simply need get some bars or roll down metal shield. There is no need for cameras, guns, or booby traps. Every time Sidamo is burglarized, I am sure their insurance increases along with other businesses on H. Street. Therefore, they should eat the cost and get proper security. I was sympathetic the first time, but this time it is on them.


People are acting as if Sidamo is a non-profit organization. Get a business loan and get some property security. Most people have a car and home alarm. Why should Sidamo be any different. Even the businesses downtown have some form of security.

inked said...

Sidamo does have an alarm, & they have now installed cameras.

Anonymous said...

I personally have never held a gun and hope to never come in contact with one, so in no way am I advocating for more guns...and as much as I'd love to live in a utopian society where guns never existed, the fact is that's not going to happen. I was anti-gun all the way until my house mate who loved a good debate showed me an article called - The false promise of gun control. He studied this in law school a great deal, and whenever I get upset about the lack of gun control he whips out this paper and points out that guns have been legal in the U.S. for hundreds of years -- they can't be banned, confiscated. And data shows that states with fewer gun control laws have less crime -- I couldn't find the essay online, but did find this interview with John Lott, author of "More Guns Less Crime." The whole point is that if someone thinks you may be armed, then they won't point a gun your way -- it's not rocket science. Again, I'm hardly advocating for more guns -- I don't own any fire arms or even a can of mace for that matter. But I am data driven, and facts are stubborn things...
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html

PS -- as he loves to say, more kids die each year from drowning accidents than by firearms...

Mr. Other Upper NW said...

"more kids die each year from drowning accidents than by firearms"

Which means nothing. More people die from heart disease than from drunk driving crashes. Big deal.

I can see the value of gun ownership, though. Someone whom I know (not from this area) was the victim of a home invasion some years back. The intruder made it into her bedroom, and was promptly introduced to a bullet courtesy of the handgun she kept by her bedside. She feels with near certainty that she would have been raped--or worse--by this man had she not had a gun to protect herself. As it stood, he was wounded, arrested, and is now in prison. So there are always two sides to this debate.

Anonymous said...

This has been a very interesting debate on gun controle. I've learned a lot from this discussion. The conclusion that I have drawn from this debate is that that both sides have valid points. Mr 14th & you's home invasion story raises a valid point of having a gun in the nearby maybe saving a person's life. And there are probably thousands of similar stories yet to be told. On the other hand there probably thousands of tragic gun accidents by children and other tragedies.

It all comes down to whether you feel safer owning a gun or whether you feel safer not owning one. The second ammendment gives you that choice.

I personally don't like guns and don't want to be anywhere near them. Nor will I ever own one. Those are my personal feelings. But my preferences cannot over rule the rights of others who prefer to own guns.