What to Look for in 2023 Crime Report

by James A. Bacon

Data! We crave data!

In past years the Virginia State Police has published its annual Crime in Virginia reports in May. For whatever reason, it’s mid-August and we have not yet seen the 2023 report. I may be the only person in Virginia who is agitated by the delay. Most media are satisfied with giving a top-line rendering of homicides and crime stats, but I like to dig deep into the statistics, and the older and more out-of-date the data gets, the more frustrated I get.

Eventually, the report will be published, and I’ll relay key findings to Bacon’s Rebellion readers when it is.

Based on anecdotal reading of news headlines, I expect that 2023 will show a meaningful drop in the homicide rate, and perhaps violent crime generally. We’ll see a continued decline in reports of drug offenses, many of which have been decriminalized. I think we’ll see a decline in non-drug-related non-violent crime, but I’m less certain.

If violent crime rates drop, as I anticipate, the obvious question will be why. My instinct is to attribute any decline to a cessation of the defund-the-police rhetoric that demoralized police, hindered hiring, and sent police into a defensive crouch. The decline in police-hostile rhetoric since the 2000 George Floyd “mostly peaceful” protests is undeniable. Articles about police-department staffing shortages are rarer and less dire. In at least some locales, police have been adopting more aggressive tactics. But we shall see.

Crime is a local phenomenon, and statewide trends can obscure important shifts taking place locally. Another big variable is the effectiveness of progressive prosecutors dedicated to the pursuit of social justice. Their rhetoric has been more subdued in the past year and a half. Have their prosecutorial policies changed? Have they succeeded in balancing their social-reform priorities with keeping communities safe?

One more interesting item: hate crimes. The last three months of 2023 coincided with the Hamas terror attacks on Israel, Israeli counterattacks on Hamas, pro-Palestinian protests in Virginia and nationally, and a sharpening of rhetoric. Will we see a spike in anti-Jewish and/or anti-Muslim hate crimes in Virginia, or has the nastiness been limited mostly to college communities?

One thing the VSP statistics cannot shed light on is the inherently political nature of the process of filing hate crime stats. How much discretion do local authorities have in deciding what to classify as a hate crime? Jewish students at the University of Virginia cite dozens of incidents of anti-Jewish words and deeds, but UVA authorities have dismissed them as undocumented or overblown. Will any alleged antisemitic hate crimes percolate through progressive police and commonwealth-attorney offices in the People’s Republic of Charlottesville and enter into the statewide crime stats?

So many questions. Please, VSP, publish your report soon.

 


ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)




Comments


Comments

116 responses to “What to Look for in 2023 Crime Report”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    โ€œMy instinct is to attribute any decline to a cessation of the defund-the-police rhetoric that demoralized police, hindered hiring, and sent police into a defensive crouch.โ€

    So you are defining causation without even knowing if there is a correlation this timeโ€ฆ wowโ€ฆ

    Given the number of immigrants purportedly invading Virginia, I wouldnโ€™t be surprised if crime was downโ€ฆ. rightโ€ฆ?

    1. It's called being totally up-front about the way I'm thinking. Another thing I do is change my thinking when evidence presents itself. I suppose I should have phrased it differently: "I hypothesize that any decline in the violent crime rate can be attributed to…." Then, when the data comes out, I will say forthrightly where I was right and where I was wrong.

      Bottom line: I'm not "defining" causality before I see the data — I'm saying what I think the causality will be.

      If that's too much raw honesty for you, well, that's your problem.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re: , In ALL honesty, "I hypothesize that any decline in the violent crime rate MIGHT be attributed to ANY NUMBER of reasons but I'll arbitrarily pick the ones I prefer to believe"….and pontificate accordingly… as I usually do?

        ๐Ÿ˜‰

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        re: , In ALL honesty, "I hypothesize that any decline in the violent crime rate MIGHT be attributed to ANY NUMBER of reasons but I'll arbitrarily pick the ones I prefer to believe"….and pontificate accordingly… as I usually do?

        ๐Ÿ˜‰

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          is pontificate the right word?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Indubitably

            express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic.

          2. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I was thinking bloviate.

      3. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I guess you are really saying is โ€œI really, really want to attribute the reduction I expect to see to fading defund the police initiatives even though I donโ€™t even know if crime is down or if there has actually been a correlation between crime reduction and reduction in calls to defund the police in Virginia.โ€ Before you start running with your victory lap, I would point out that based on national data crime is down pretty much across the board and defund the police initiatives were very local in focus. Your โ€œinstinctโ€ is likely off here.

      4. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I guess you are really saying is โ€œI really, really want to attribute the reduction I expect to see to fading defund the police initiatives even though I donโ€™t even know if crime is down or if there has actually been a correlation between crime reduction and reduction in calls to defund the police in Virginia.โ€ Before you start running with your victory lap, I would point out that based on national data crime is down pretty much across the board and defund the police initiatives were very local in focus. Your โ€œinstinctโ€ is likely off here.

      5. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I guess you are really saying is โ€œI really, really want to attribute the reduction I expect to see to fading defund the police initiatives even though I donโ€™t even know if crime is down or if there has actually been a correlation between crime reduction and reduction in calls to defund the police in Virginia.โ€ Before you start running with your victory lap, I would point out that based on national data crime is down pretty much across the board and defund the police initiatives were very local in focus. Your โ€œinstinctโ€ is likely off here.

      6. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        I guess you are really saying is โ€œI really, really want to attribute the reduction I expect to see to fading defund the police initiatives even though I donโ€™t even know if crime is down or if there has actually been a correlation between crime reduction and reduction in calls to defund the police in Virginia.โ€ Before you start running with your victory lap, I would point out that based on national data crime is down pretty much across the board and defund the police initiatives were very local in focus. Your โ€œinstinctโ€ is likely off here.

      7. Marty Chapman Avatar
        Marty Chapman

        One wonders what certain folks would do with their time if they could not comment on alleged pontifications?

    2. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      It is, isnโ€™t it?

      1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        It must be since we already have causation establishedโ€ฆ ๐Ÿคทโ€โ™‚๏ธ

  2. LesGabriel Avatar
    LesGabriel

    What reasons are given for the lateness of the report? Is this report mandated by state law and is there a specific date required by the law? If so, there appears to be one lawbreaker within the State Police itself.

    1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
      Dick Hall-Sizemore

      State law does direct the State Police to publish the uniform crime reports for the state annually. There is no specific date by which the report is supposed to be made publicly available. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title52/chapter6/section52-26/

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        From time to time, I look at the Auditor of Public Accounts at the Locality Comparative Reports and invariably they'll have a sentence like this:

        " As of the report publication date of May 31, 2024, the Cities of Colonial Heights, Emporia, Hopewell, Norton, and Petersburg; the Counties of Accomack, Amherst, Buckingham, Dickenson, Greensville, Lee, Pulaski, Warren, and Westmoreland; and the Towns of Big Stone Gap, Clifton Forge, Richlands, and Vinton did not submit their fiscal year 2023 audited annual financial reports nor the required transmittal data to our Office. In addition, the City of Portsmouth and the County of Scott did not submit the required transmittal data but did submit their fiscal year 2023 audited annual financial reports. Accordingly, this final publication of the 2023 Comparative Report does not include the data for these 20 localities. "

        Which makes me wonder if the VSP have similar issues sometimes.

        To the Auditors credit, the format and categories are very specific – to a meaningful comparison between localities is possible.

        Dunno about the VSP… maybe you know more?

    2. Marty Chapman Avatar
      Marty Chapman

      The unit that compiles and publishes the report is small, 3-4 positions. I suspect staffing shortages are a factor.

  3. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    I am trying to understand the reasoning behind the following statement: "My instinct is to attribute any decline to a cessation of the defund-the-police rhetoric that demoralized police, hindered hiring, and sent police into a defensive crouch." You go on to say, "Articles about police-department staffing shortages are rarer and less dire." Apparently, you are contending that more cops on the job result in fewer crimes. I agree that is a valid position, up to a point, that is.

    The data in the next report will cover calendar year 2023. The weakness in your hypothesis is that, during 2023, police departments were still experiencing staffing shortages. That was the case in Fairfax County , Norfolk , Richmond , Hampton Roads generally , and Portsmout . If the crime rates have fallen, nonetheless, perhaps another hypothesis would be in orfer. Maybe: the sharp increases during COVID were an aberration and things are returning to normal, which was a general overall decrease that criminologists have not yet been able to adequately explain.

    One other question: When have "anti-Jewish words" become a hate crime?

    I provided links to those articles citing shortages, but they are not showing up. Here they are:

    https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/norfolk/norfolk-city-fy-2024-budget-proposes-cutting-empty-police-officer-position/291-d4342b50-e281-4345-86a0-ee158053f84b
    https://wjla.com/news/local/fairfax-county-police-union-virginia-jeff-mckay-monahan-new-proposal-raise-salaries-short-staffed-fcpd-kevin-davis-nova-board-supervisors-dmv
    https://www.13newsnow.com/article/news/local/mycity/norfolk/norfolk-city-fy-2024-budget-proposes-cutting-empty-police-officer-position/291-d4342b50-e281-4345-86a0-ee158053f84b
    https://www.wtvr.com/news/local-news/richmond-public-safety-shortage-feb-24-2023
    https://www.wtkr.com/news/police-recruits-in-short-supply-as-chesapeake-works-to-fill-40-vacancies

  4. Lefty665 Avatar

    Many people oppose the Israeli government's murder of 40,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children. They also condemn things like a recent Israeli cabinet member's call to starve Palestinians in Gaza. Conflating opposition to Israel's horrendous, genocidal words and actions, committed by Jews, with anti-semitism or hate crimes is absolutely wrong and often a tactic used to suppress free speech.

    Israel is committing hate crimes, crimes against humanity and war crimes. It deserves condemnation by all decent people. There is hope that criticism of Israeli outrages will help it see the error of its ways and pursue peaceful coexistence with it's neighbors rather than starving and murdering them.

    1. Israel is fighting a war for survival , not from hate, not from a desire to murder another group of people. War is not murder . When the enemyโ€™s leaders instigated the war through actual murder, rape and kidnapping of a cross section of citizens from infants through the elderly, there was no outcry by the Palestinians. Instead, some of those Palestinians, including women and teens, joined inthe attacks as recorded in Hamas videos celebrating their barbarism ConflatingHamas propaganda with the consequences of warfare is anti-Semitic. Holding a nation as war criminals for the wrongful speech and attitudes of individuals and ignoring the provocation of the continued holding of hostages from several countries, including the US, is anti-Semitic propaganda

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        My point is not to initiate a debate on Israel's motives or the merits of the Gaza confict.

        Jim seems to be lamenting that the use of "anti-Jewish" words will not show up in crime reports as a hate crime. My point is that "anti-Jewish" words are protected by the First Amendment. They become a hate crime only when accompanied by action. And some actions, such as demonstrations, are protected by the First Amendment.

        You may view Lefty's words as "anti-Semitic propaganda," but that does not make it a hate crime for which he can be arrested and that arrest show up in the Crime in Virginia report.

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          Dick, is anti- semitic propaganda "hate speech"?

          1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Two points:
            1. "Hate speech" is not a "hate crime".
            2. Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti-semitism

          2. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Expressing concern for civilians and 600,000 kids in GAZA is not a hate crime.

          3. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            one question:
            is anti- semitic propaganda “hate speech”?

          4. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
            Dick Hall-Sizemore

            Before I respond to questions like this, I need to know the meaning of what I am responding to. Please define "anti-semitic" and "propaganda".

          5. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Dick, you are a well educated, literate, man. Please feel free to define antisemitic propaganda and hate speech in the context of Mr. Bacon's post and your response.

          6. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Dick, 2 days, no response. The problem, of course is that the very concept of 'hate speech" is antithetical to the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech (and expression as per various court rulings).

          7. In Virginia, it depends on whether the propaganda is accompanied by a threat of violence or harm.

            Lacking a threat, it is not a hate crime.

          8. In Virginia, it depends on whether the propaganda is accompanied by a threat of violence or harm.

            Lacking a threat, it is not a hate crime.

          9. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            Wayne, I am not referring to a legally defined hate crime. I am asking Dick if antisemitic propaganda is hate speech?

        2. Lefty665 Avatar

          Your point is well taken.

          Please also note that I reject the slur that my words are in any way "anti-semitic" or "hate speech".

          I have repeatedly condemned the crimes against humanity committed by Israel in Gaza and elsewhere. I have never generalized that to mean all Jews, or Jews in general. In fact there are many Jews, both here and in Israel, who have openly opposed Israel's war crimes. Some of them have demonstrated as "Jews Against Genocide".

          The charge of anti-semitism for any opposition to Israel's actions is a common tactic used to demean the speaker to avoid dealing with the issue of Israeli crimes against humanity.

          Israel must change its war criminal ways to avoid its own destruction. Those of us who care about Israel's survival will continue to advocate to achieve that goal.

      2. Lefty665 Avatar

        <i>"ConflatingHamas propaganda with the consequences of warfare is anti-Semitic."</i>

        Conflating the murder of 40,000 Palestinians with the consequences of Israeli warfare, enabled and supplied by the US, as a crime against humanity is sanity.

        <i>"Holding a nation as war criminals for the wrongful speech and attitudes of individuals and ignoring the provocation of the continued holding of hostages from several countries, including the US, is anti-Semitic propaganda."</i>

        We hold a nation as war criminals for the murder of 40,000 people, mostly women and children. It is what Israel has done, not what individual Israelis, even those in government, like the finance minister, have said, that is the issue. What individuals have said demonstrate Israeli intent to commit the crimes against humanity we have witnessed for coming up on a year now.

        Israel is sowing the seeds of its own destruction. Those of us who care about Israel need to advocate for it to change its disastrous and war criminal ways to enable its survival. Cheering Israel on and rationalizing even greater war crimes and depravity will only lead to Israel's destruction and perhaps wider war that threatens us all.

        If this be anti-semitism make the most of it.

    2. Marty Chapman Avatar
      Marty Chapman

      Ok I will bite one last time. What would this "peaceful coexistence" look like?

      1. Marty Chapman Avatar
        Marty Chapman

        2 days, no reply. This speaks volumes.

        1. Lefty665 Avatar

          It does, you are not worth wasting the time to respond to.

  5. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    hmmm. There is more than ample evidence that if a car hits a pedestrian at 25 MPH it will more than likely result in a fatality or severe injury; at under 20 MPH, it is far less unlikely to result in a fatality. So, whatโ€™s the speed limit on residential streets?

    Hey, crime schime, want to save lives? Add 15 seconds to your reaching a city street from your house.

    1. how_it_works Avatar
      how_it_works

      Why do so many neighborhoods in Virginia lack sidewalks?

      Like the one where my dad's house (now sold) was. Neighborhood built in 1987, there are curb cuts for sidewalks, but the sidewalks were never built.

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Kill pedestrians?

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          Virginia is like a no-frills discount grocery store with Wegman’s pricing.

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Piggly Wiggly? Or, โ€œClose but not a WEOโ€

          2. Do you remember Be-Lo supermarkets in and around the Va. Beach/Norfolk area?

            That name popped into my head after reading your reference to Piggly Wiggly – prior to that I hadn't thought about it in several decades. I think there was also something called Colonial Stores, with a rooster in their logo?

          3. Do you remember Be-Lo supermarkets in and around the Va. Beach/Norfolk area?

            That name popped into my head after reading your reference to Piggly Wiggly – prior to that I hadn't thought about it in several decades. I think there was also something called Colonial Stores, with a rooster in their logo?

          4. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            Yep. Fram Fresh, and Lou Smithโ€™s too. I do remember Colonial Stores too. I think there was one on Little Creek Rd.

      2. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        down this way , the developers argue that since the sidewalks don't go anywhere, i.e. don't "connect" they are just a needless expense.

        1. how_it_works Avatar
          how_it_works

          They’d argue that building inspections are a needless expense too.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s no longer optional for some projects. VDOT essentially requires it if a new/improved road is proposed in an area where there is significant residential. Sidewalks plus ped/bike crossings at signals.

            VDOT has evolved from moving cars to moving people!

          2. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Easier for cars to move if they don’t have to worry about hitting a pedestrian in the street because there’s no sidewalk.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Yes, but then they run off peds at the traffic signals… and turns into and out of side streets. There’s talk
            of taking away right-turn-on-red … because cars will not yield to peds in the crosswalks.

          4. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Would never happen in Virginia. They’d never give up the Federal $$$.

            “The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 requires states to allow right turns on red lights in order to receive federal highway funding. This was intended as a fuel conservation measure, and all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and Puerto Rico have permitted right turns on red since 1980, with the exception of some locations.”

          5. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “Right turns on red (RTOR) are permitted in most US states, unless prohibited by signs or traffic lights. The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 made RTOR a requirement for states to receive federal energy assistance, as long as it was “consistent with safety”. The practice became widespread in the 1970s as a way to save gas by reducing idling at red lights.
            However, some cities and states are considering or have banned RTOR to increase pedestrian safety and reduce crashes at intersections. For example, Washington, DC passed a bill that generally prohibits RTOR, but allows the Department of Transportation to permit them at certain intersections if they deem it safer. New York City also severely restricts RTOR. “

          6. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Again, if Virginia wants to lose Federal funding, Virginia can ban right turn on red.

          7. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            "As of 1992, right turn on red is governed federally by 42 U.S.C. ยง 6322(c) ("Each proposed State energy conservation plan to be eligible for Federal assistance under this part shall include: …(5) a traffic law or regulation which,

            to the maximum extent practicable consistent with safety,

            permits the operator of a motor vehicle to turn such vehicle right at a red stop light after stopping, and to turn such vehicle left from a one-way street onto a one-way street at a red light after stopping."). All turns on red are forbidden in New York City unless a sign is posted permitting it."

          8. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Yes. That’s what “Federal assistance” is. Money. Virginia loves Federal money, like a crack addict loves their crack.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            There are all kinds of pots of money that are available if you do what the Feds want but what they want can and does change and right now the emphasis is on safety and reducing death and injuries from motor vehicles as well as congestion reduction and this has set off a whole series of changes to address that issue. For instance, VDOT is now building Restricted Crossing U-Turn (RCUT) intersections primarily because the Feds will help pay for it because the Feds say it is a “proven” design that reduces accidents, injuries, etc.

            A similar thing is going on with respect to right turn on red – WHERE THERE ARE – ped crossings, and such which is the case in many towns and cities that are pretty much banning it with exceptions where there not ped crossings. These changes have come after increasing year over year injuries and deaths to peds from right turn on red collisions from vehicles. Some folks think it’s VDOT’s job to provide roads that get people from Point A to Point B the fastest way possible with the least delay. If that ever was a goal, it’s no longer. THey are now focused on reducing accidents, deaths and injuries by building “proven” designs that often trade more delay for more safety. (like Roundabouts, diverging diamonds, etc. ). Some folks are unaware and see these changes as bad things that slow them down!

          10. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            Great. Maybe VDOT can add shoulders to their tobacco roads.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            THey do especially if the locality helps out but here’s the problem. You fix the shoulder and the
            folks that are ALREADY going much faster than conditions, will go even faster! Some of these roads were
            designed to 1930’s era standards for 35-45 and now people go 60+ even though they can’t see around the
            curves or over the hills.. they just drive as fast as they can without hitting the shoulder!

          12. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            If there were shoulders on these tobacco roads I think my mailbox wouldn’t have been hit 7 times.

            It’s currently laying in the front yard and I’m going to the post office to get my mail.

            Don’t even care enough at this point to bother to put it back up.

            Y’all cannot drive. Y’all knock down my mailbox, ya’ll knock down street signs, y’all knock down the flashing sign warning that Old Church is flooded (they still haven’t put it back up).

            Hey, y’all–if y’all knock down all the street signs, y’all ain’t got nothing to use for y’alls target practice!

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            They’re driving too fast for conditions (like road design) and running into things. property and people and insurance rates are showing it. Driving too fast for conditions is, is some respects , just as irresponsible as DUI.

          14. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            There are never any skid marks leading up to what they've knocked over.

            This suggests to me that they did nothing to avoid crashing into roadside object.

            Probably because they were either not paying attention (cellphone) or their reaction time is slow (weed/alcohol/other drugs).

          15. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            going too fast , not enough reaction time… messing with cell phone and/or other distractions at speeds already too fast for conditions and they just run into things. Not everyone but way too many. They can’t or won’t control themselves until they have a wreck or close call. Don’t need to be timid but do need to drive
            with purpose instead of careless and clueless.

          16. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            If you have to drive a vehicle that matched your driving ability, most of these drivers would be in a Cozy Coupe.

          17. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I think 80-90% of “accidents” are caused by the driver, often and usually going too fast for conditions. The other 10-20% just are in the wrong place at the wrong time and likely a victim of the first group. Ever watch some of the dash cam videos? How many were not the fault of anyone?

          18. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            In those dash cam videos, failure to yield seems to be a common problem.

          19. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            going too fast to yield… so they just plow into others. I’ve seen a few with the guy was truly
            in the wrong place at the wrong time – usually a secondary hit from a primary crash.
            And these people who cause the crashes, they LIE until the dashcam catches them.

          20. how_it_works Avatar
            how_it_works

            What I see is they they just plain fail to stop (and usually aren’t going very fast) or they stop but then pull out in front of oncoming traffic.

            One time years ago I was stopped at a red light. I was the only car at the light and the left lane had no car waiting. About 5 whole seconds before the light turned green, a Lexus blew through the red light. Yes, that’s right, this guy blew the red light after it had been red for almost an entire cycle.

            I caught up with this driver to see what was going on—-cellphone glued to his ear.

          21. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            Some are really egregious but a lot of them are folks who are just moving or moving too fast when
            they should not be. There are those who check the lights for red-light runners and there are others
            who do not … these days, going slow and looking as you enter the signal is not only a good practice,
            but it can save your car and you from the irresponsible of which are rampant these days. THey try
            to outdo each other.

    2. Marty Chapman Avatar
      Marty Chapman

      Nancy, is this just a random pontification?

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Is not everything, save purchase orders, on the internet?

        1. Marty Chapman Avatar
          Marty Chapman

          In the admittedly unlikely event that you are referring to the original topic ie "Crime in VA" as compiled by the VSP, it is normally available on the VSP website in May/June. So far no posting this year (for 2023 stats).

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            But itโ€™s not just the stats presented here. It comes accompanied with wild gesticulations.

          2. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            By "wild gesticulations" I gather you are referring to Mr. Bacon's various hypotheses about what the 2023 stats might show. Here is another hypothesis based on long term trends – black men under 50 will be grossly overrepresented as both the victims and identified perpetrators of homicides.

        2. Is not everything, save purchase orders, on the internet [random pontification]?

          Purchase orders, and the website www. isabevigodadead.co m..

        3. Is not everything, save purchase orders, on the internet [random pontification]?

          Purchase orders, and the website www. isabevigodadead.co m..

        4. Is not everything, save purchase orders, on the internet [random pontification]?

          Purchase orders, and the website www. isabevigodadead.co m..

        5. Is not everything, save purchase orders, on the internet [random pontification]?

          Purchase orders, and the website www. isabevigodadead.co m..

          1. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I hope Abe was responsible for that. Itโ€™s something he would have done.

          2. It was set up by a fan, but Abe Vigoda was aware of it and did not object – in fact he found it humorous.

            The guy created the site after persistent rumors of the man's death circulated on several occasions.

            For the longest time the site said "Yes" when you logged into it.

            I still visit the site once in awhile, just in case…

          3. It was set up by a fan, but Abe Vigoda was aware of it and did not object – in fact he found it humorous.

            The guy created the site after persistent rumors of the man's death circulated on several occasions.

            For the longest time the site said "Yes" when you logged into it.

            I still visit the site once in awhile, just in case…

          4. It was set up by a fan, but Abe Vigoda was aware of it and did not object – in fact he found it humorous.

            The guy created the site after persistent rumors of the man's death circulated on several occasions.

            For the longest time the site said "Yes" when you logged into it.

            I still visit the site once in awhile, just in case…

    3. Lefty665 Avatar

      Might want to look at that double negative "far less unlikely". They're slippery b***ards.:)

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Sleep. Wasnโ€™t it wonderful years back?

  6. Marty Chapman Avatar
    Marty Chapman

    Jim, you are not alone! I have been waiting for Crime in Va and the Chief Medical Examiner's annual report. Both are overdue. Things at VSP seem even more chaotic than usual!

  7. Isn't it obvious… it's the increase in legal firearms purchases in the state. Criminals fear confronting armed citizens:
    2023: 535,472
    2022: 560,701
    2021: 638, 818
    2020: 810,867
    2019: 499,809
    DUH

    1. I don't think that has been firmly established, but the gun haters were certainly not shy about blaming "easy access to firearms" for the most recent increases in crime. Now there are even more guns in private hands, twenty-nine states have adopted constitutional carry (in 2010 there were only three), crime is decreasing once again, and those who would take away our guns still pretend that private ownership of guns is the problem.

      At the very least, relaxing restrictions on firearms ownership and carrying by law-abiding citizens has no effect on crime rates, and it certainly does not cause them to increase.

    2. I don't think that has been firmly established from a statistical standpoint, but the gun haters were certainly not shy about blaming "easy access to firearms" for the most recent increases in crime. When increases in firearm ownership occur while crime rates are trending downward (such as occurred over the 35 years prior to 2020) they'll remind us that correlation does not equal causation, but when it's the other way around it's "guns are to blame"…

      In 2024 there are even more guns in private hands than ever before, twenty-nine states have adopted constitutional carry (in 2010 there were only three), and all indications are that crime is decreasing once again, but those who would take away our guns still pretend that private ownership of guns is a major problem.

      At the very least, relaxing restrictions on private firearm ownership for law-abiding citizens, and eliminating restrictions on carrying firearms on our person has no effect on crime rates. It most certainly does not cause them to increase.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        You guys say "good guys with guns" and I say "which ones are gun nuts?" We don't need to restrict guns to those that should have them but my heartburn is that we seem to be ambivalent with respect to keeping them away from people that we ought to be keeping them away from. There is no middle ground, apparently.

        1. By the way, I said nothing about "good guys with guns". I differentiated between law-abiding and not law-abiding, but that has little or nothing to do with whether a guy (or gal) is "good" or not.

        2. I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of the dangerously mentally ill.

          But then again, it wasn't conservative law abiding gun owners who decided that such people should remain loose to harm the general population instead of being locked up in mental institutions.

          FYI – You are using 'gun nut' as a pejorative. You are doing the same thing which you criticize others for when they use 'woke' as a pejorative. The term has historically been a harmless, friendly, and somewhat humorous description of a person who really likes legally owning and shooting guns – a person who knows a lot about guns and likes to talk about them. You have turned it into an insult. Why?

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            I you in favor of testing them BEFORE they get guns so we KNOW for sure? Not every mentally ill person is going to get identified and institutionalized and it’s not even mentally ill, it’s emotionally disturbed and such. We sell them guns right before they go out and shoot people – all the time! what is the difference between a “good guy with a gun” and a “wacko with a gun”? We can’t seem to deal with it.

          2. Am I in favor of testing them BEFORE they get guns so we KNOW for sure?

            If you mean being required to pass a psychological exam before one can purchase a gun, then no I am not in favor of it. I'm no more in favor of that it than I am of using prior restraint to control the freedom of speech.

            Many people forget that in a free society, where individual rights are sacred, we must wait for a person to take action before we can infringe on their rights. This places us all at greater risk of being harmed by criminals and crazy people than if we lived in a society where people were locked up at the first sign of being 'different', but begin prepared to defend one's person and property from such people is part of being free.

            The phrase "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is not just applicable to our government/military – it applies to us as individuals as well.

            As a great man once said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

          3. Am I in favor of testing them BEFORE they get guns so we KNOW for sure?

            If you mean being required to pass a psychological exam before one can purchase a gun, then no I am not in favor of it. I'm no more in favor of that it than I am of using prior restraint to control the freedom of speech.

            Many people forget that in a free society, where individual rights are sacred, we must wait for a person to take action before we can infringe on their rights. This places us all at greater risk of being harmed by criminals and crazy people than if we lived in a society where people were locked up at the first sign of being 'different', but begin prepared to defend one's person and property from such people is part of being free.

            The phrase "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is not just applicable to our government/military – it applies to us as individuals as well.

            As a great man once said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

          4. Am I in favor of testing them BEFORE they get guns so we KNOW for sure?

            If you mean being required to pass a psychological exam before one can purchase a gun, then no I am not in favor of it. I'm no more in favor of that it than I am of using prior restraint to control the freedom of speech.

            Many people forget that in a free society, where individual rights are sacred, we must wait for a person to take action before we can infringe on their rights. This places us all at greater risk of being harmed by criminals and crazy people than if we lived in a society where people were locked up at the first sign of being 'different', but begin prepared to defend one's person and property from such people is part of being free.

            The phrase "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is not just applicable to our government/military – it applies to us as individuals as well.

            As a great man once said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

          5. Am I in favor of testing them BEFORE they get guns so we KNOW for sure?

            If you mean being required to pass a psychological exam before one can purchase a gun, then no I am not in favor of it. I'm no more in favor of that it than I am of using prior restraint to control the freedom of speech.

            Many people forget that in a free society, where individual rights are sacred, we must wait for a person to take action before we can infringe on their rights. This places us all at greater risk of being harmed by criminals and crazy people than if we lived in a society where people were locked up at the first sign of being 'different', but begin prepared to defend one's person and property from such people is part of being free.

            The phrase "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" is not just applicable to our government/military – it applies to us as individuals as well.

            As a great man once said, "those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            free speech is not the same as killing people. Prior-restraint of people buying guns at the same time they are on social media promoting to kill people ? We don’t sell dynamite or poisons or a wide range of deadly things to people who do not demonstrate a legitimate reason to have them.

            Selling guns to people who kill others and the investigation after shows they intended to – we call that a
            “right”, right?

          7. I did not equate free speech and murder – I equated free speech and gun ownership. And you know that. You are being disingenuous. Practicing free speech is almost exactly the same thing as owning a gun.

            Your comment is an example of why it is usually pointless to try to have a logical discussion with you. Your emotions get the better of you, and you do things like accusing someone of intimating that people have a right to commit murder.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            talking about the CONSEQUENCES of Free Speech vs right-to-own a weapon. You typically don’t kill people with free speech. In my view, trying to have a “logical” discussion with a gun owner these days is a real challenge because they won’t even admit the realities of what happens with gun ownership. All they want to talk about is the “law abiding” guys, not the ones going out and killing people.

          9. Marty Chapman Avatar
            Marty Chapman

            WayneS, credit given for patiently trying to engage!

          10. One more thing and then I'll leave you alone on this issue: Please provide a logical argument for requiring a "waiting period" prior to a firearms purchase by someone who already owns a dozen guns; or one gun for that matter.

            It certainly isn't going to provide the purchaser a "cooling off" period – if they were hell bent on to committing a crime with a gun they would already have used one they already own.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            When you say they already own for years, that does count for something, as opposed to never owned and now buying along with a crapload of ammo, etc..

            Somewhere in the middle of this are some common-sense things to ferret out the ones that we found out
            after the fact were ticking time bombs… we sold them guns and out they go to kill people – it’s on their
            social media ! People around them know it, etc.

            So did want to ask you about registration – how did they find out who the shooter was at Trump so quick
            if his gun was not registered and could not be traced back to the owner?

          12. I have previously stated that it is a violation of federal law for the government to keep a list of guns cross-referenced with those who purchase them (aka a registry of guns).

            However, I do not recall claiming that the FBI, ATF and Secret Service do not routinely and regularly violate that law. So, how they traced it so quickly is that those agencies operate in continuous violation of federal law.

          13. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            and that’s the only real way we have to trace guns and owners?

        3. By the way, I said nothing about "good guys with guns". I differentiated between law-abiding and not law-abiding, but that has little or nothing to do with whether a guy (or gal) is "good" or not.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            It’s a common phrase and not that different from “law abiding” when you don’t know until AFTER which gun owners ARE law-abiding and which are not – they ALL get guns no matter, right?

          2. No, not right.

            Two words: background check.

          3. No, not right.

            Two words: background check.

          4. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            A LOT depends on what is in the background check and how long you have to do it. It’s a farce, people who kill pass it all the time – people that we find out after the fact were planning on killing – on their social media.

          5. So what do you propose? And please make it something that does not involve wanton violations of people's rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and/or 14th amendments.

          6. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            If someone says – find the mentally and emotionally ill BEFORE they apply for a gun, it’s a no go and everyone knows it. We’re not going to evaluate each of us for mental problems so we can create a list of those who
            cannot apply for a gun. It makes much more sense than when you apply that they check just as is done for a wide number of jobs that involve risks to other lives (like an airline pilot).

            Re” wanton “violations” – a bunch of foolishness. Nothing in the 2nd amendment says anything at all about the “right” being restricted – which it is already. Are those laws that currently “restrict” access to “arms”, “wanton” violations of the 2A? BS!

          7. Speaking of BS and foolishness, your little emotional rant was completely off target. My comment did not include anything about the 2nd amendment. I mentioned the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

            If you think being concerned about violations of those rights is foolishness and BS then you have gone a lot farther down the path to authoritarianism than I thought.

          8. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            “emotional rant” – indeed, I can count on you whenever guns come up! Why did you EVEN mention all those in the first place? Do we have huge risks of losing them? What would you do, get your guns? ๐Ÿ˜‰

          9. Again, you are letting emotions rule your thoughts. You have expanded my comment into something it is not.

            I asked you if you had a solution to the problem of people with ill intent being able to purchase guns before we know they have ill intent. And, I asked that your solution not violate people's rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

            In short, I was pointing out that when you set about infringing on a person's 2nd amendment rights (which is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances) you need to do so in a manner which does not violate their other constitutional rights.

          10. Again, you are letting emotions rule your thoughts. You have expanded my comment into something it is not.

            I asked you if you had a solution to the problem of people with ill intent being able to purchase guns before we know they have ill intent. And, I asked that your solution not violate people's rights under the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, and 14th amendments.

            In short, I was pointing out that when you set about infringing on a person's 2nd amendment rights (which is perfectly acceptable under certain circumstances) you need to do so in a manner which does not violate their other constitutional rights.

          11. LarrytheG Avatar
            LarrytheG

            No emotion at all. zilch. Projection going on here.

            I’ve not expanded your comment, you did. You asked a question that’s not the actual circumstance and then you tried to further restrict it with more nonsense typical of the gun rights foolishness that supports guns getting into the hands of killers, in my view.

            I did not disagree that it’s NOT acceptable to find out who has “issues” by searching the population without a cause but it IS acceptable to restrict people who want weapons to be evaluated for fitness to own them. We already do that but we don’t do it to the level that would catch would-be killer – in the act – of getting guns to kill. We can do that.

            Further, you assert that how we find out who the killers are and the guns they have – is unconstitutional but
            apparently the gun rights folks have not legally tried to stop it? Seems like a no-brainer if it truly is against
            the law, no?

Leave a Reply


ADVERTISEMENT