Violent crime down 12% in '08
Homicides, robberies spike in small towns nationwide
Charleston saw a steeper decline in violent crime last year than many other cities its size across the nation, but a jump in rapes and robberies remains cause for concern, officials said Wednesday.
The Holy City saw a 12 percent drop in violent crime in 2008, largely fueled by a marked decline in aggravated assaults. That compares with a 2.5 percent drop in violent crime nationally, according to the FBI's preliminary crime statistics.
The data, released this week, shows that violent crime fell across the nation for the second straight year, after increases in 2005 and 2006. The nation as a whole saw fewer murders, rapes, robberies and assaults. Cities of all sizes appeared to grow safer while small towns with fewer than 10,000 residents saw a 5.5 percent spike in homicides and a nearly 4 percent jump in robberies, the FBI reported.
Charleston Police Chief Greg Mullen said he was pleased overall with the city's progress in reducing crime with the aid of improved technology, intelligence-gathering and use of manpower. "I think we are moving in the right direction, and we have a good amount of programs and processes in place," he said.
Mullen said most of the 60 reported rapes were domestic in nature or involved acquaintances. Police and victim advocates are stepping up education and awareness efforts this year in an effort to curb some of this violence, he said.
Police also worked hard to curtail nettlesome street robberies and a string of holiday-time business hold-ups that boosted the city's robbery numbers last year, Mullen said. But he said such crimes will remain a problem until the state tackles meaningful criminal justice reform to keep repeat violent offenders off of the streets. "Unfortunately, we end up arresting the same people over and over again," he said.
The FBI report contained detailed statistics for all cities with populations of 100,000 people or more. In South Carolina, only Charleston and Columbia met that threshold. Complete information on all cities and towns will be made available in a final report published in the fall, according to the FBI.
North Charleston, however, released its own crime numbers earlier this year, showing a 15 percent drop in violent crime, with fewer killings, rapes, robberies and assaults than in 2007.
Police Chief Jon Zumalt said the number of shootings in his city have continued to drop in the first five months of this year. North Charleston has 45 shootings, compared with 64 in the same time period last year, he said.
"Shootings on the street are dropping significantly in our city," he said. "To me, that's the true barometer of street violence."
Zumalt said the improved crime numbers in Charleston and North Charleston likely reflect an attempt by both police departments to better analyze data and target resources where they are needed most.
Still, there is work to be done. North Charleston police, for example, are concentrating on reducing burglaries, which are up 7 percent so far this year after a 2 percent jump in 2008, Zumalt said.
Charleston and North Charleston both saw an increase in property crimes last year, driven mainly by a rise in larcenies. Motor vehicle thefts, however, were down in both cities, statistics show.
Reach Glenn Smith at 937-5556 or gsmith@postandcourier.com.
E-mail this story
Printer-friendly version
Comments
ln1959 (anonymous) says...
Crime must be down by 12% in all cities. Two days ago, I seen a report on Forbes.com that say's Charleston is rank 8th in violent crime in 2008, which makes Charleston more violent then New Orleans which is ranked 11th. Heck its worst then Baltimore, MD which is ranked 10th.
June 4, 2009 at 8:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
How 'bout showin' the real numbers? Seems like every friggin day they are pulling a body out of somewhere.
June 4, 2009 at 8:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Chum_r (anonymous) says...
I didn't see a thing on concealed weapon permits being at an all time high in your text. From 2007 to 2008 CWP's increased from 2,222 to 3,305 in Charleston County alone. Put yourself in a criminal's shoes or better yet ask 50 of them to really bring your story to life. I would have to guess the fact that the police have new high tech toys to help them solve crime after they are over with, is not why they have slowed down a bit. It helps, don't get me wrong, but as a criminal, if you don't know if the next victim you choose may be one of those 3,305 with a CWP... you may stop and think about it awhile. What I get from your text worries me and that is, the police have gotten better and we can all rest easy. This is not the fact. The fact is that the good guys and girls (police and civilian) must work together as a team. Thanks to the 3,305 that took the time and paid the price for the training to get their CWP and to the men and women on our police force. Keep up the good work!
June 4, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nappyd (anonymous) says...
And Violent Crime Reports also down 20% in 2008 ;)
June 4, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kgcharleston (anonymous) says...
There must have been quite a large decrease in aggravated assaults to off-set the disturbingly large number of armed robberies in the area.
Don't believe the hype...the criminals are just focusing more on sticking guns in random people's faces for money and less on beating the daylights out of each other! I preferred it the other way. It's all a product of the poor economy...they gotta get paid!
June 4, 2009 at 10:03 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
Way to sum it up Chum_r. With the liberals trying to limit our gun rights, it will get worse. Everybody knows that a criminal is going to attain illegal things. That's what makes them criminals. Take guns out of the hands of homeowners and good people in general, you are asking for it. Less guns for defense= more guns for offense.
June 4, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
craigdelk (anonymous) says...
I think it's Pres. Bush's fault that Charleston has a high crime rate. Maybe Obama the savior can help our destitute city.
June 4, 2009 at 10:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Luna (anonymous) says...
When the economy is in the tank crime goes up.....
Want to bet 2009 will see an increase?
June 4, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
It's not precise to say that liberal politicians are trying to limit gun rights, Nopartisan. It's more accurate to say that they're trying to balance rights with risks.
Honestly now, who *really* needs an assault rifle to protect themselves, their family or their home? A hunting rifle or shotgun is more than enough for a person to protect their property, and a handgun is sufficient for personal protection when away from home. If you're regularly in situations where you need the stopping power and clip size of a fully automatic assault rifle, it might be time to reevaluate your situation.
June 4, 2009 at 11:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
What if you enjoy shooting an assault rifle? What if you enjoy going out to the gun range on Hwy. 41 and shooting an assault rifle? You cannot take things away from everybody, because of the possibilities. That is like outlawing the purchsase of Swords. Because really, when are you going to need a sword, but you could kill someone with them. Outlawing assault rifles to licensed citizens is not going to stop the possession of them by criminals, nor crimes committed with them.
Who *really* needs the speed capabilities of these sports cars and bikes to get themselves and their families to and from school and work. A regular truck is plenty to commute with and a van is plenty for family outings. If youre regularly in situations where you need to go 125 mph and risk killing yourself and others, it might be time to re-evaluate your situation.
So should we make engines that can't go faster than 70mph?
June 4, 2009 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
I'm interested in assault rifles in an engineering capacity and I would love to take one out to a range and blow through a few clips. That being said, I'm realistic enough to know that they're hard to carry around for personal protection and that unless you're facing a full-on mob, they aren't really more effective than a hunting rifle or a shotgun for protecting a home.
Realistically, it's not a big loss if you aren't able to procure one. We aren't allowed to race NASCAR cars on streets, because that amount of power is just excessive, especially given that people are able to exceed speed limits just fine with standard automobiles.
I'm not saying that I support an assault rifle ban, but I do recognize that they aren't absolutely necessary given the other and more appropriate options purely for protective purposes.
Still, as a novelty piece and as something that's fun to take to the range for target practice and stress relief and *could* serve the home and property protection angle, they're fine. If you've got four or five hunting rifles and shotguns plus the assault rifle you like to take to the range, someone breaks in and you grab one or the other to handle the situation, fine, whatever, it's cool. If you're trying to cram the assault rifle into your jacket because you think it's a better choice for concealed protection while you're out on the town, it's time to stop and think for a minute.
June 4, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
crankyyankee (anonymous) says...
Is it just me or does anybody else notice that the P&C has for years reported on the County's improving education system and lower crime rates! What color is the sky in the news reporters world? Years ago when Greenburg was chief of police he was on Sixty Minutes because Charleston had something like a 40% decrease in crime. Turned out when the dust settled the officers were told to file fewer reports! So much for improvement!
June 4, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
cranky--sure thats the "quality Control" we all love and cherish, just fudge the numbers 'til we get the percentages we want, don't file reports etc. but it's all smoke n mirrors like everything else in Gubmint....city, county, state, Federal not much difference just different numbers to fudge, same results.
June 4, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
letstakeawalk (anonymous) says...
@ nopartisan_noproblem
"Who *really* needs the speed capabilities of these sports cars and bikes to get themselves and their families to and from school and work. A regular truck is plenty to commute with and a van is plenty for family outings. If youre regularly in situations where you need to go 125 mph and risk killing yourself and others, it might be time to re-evaluate your situation.
So should we make engines that can't go faster than 70mph?"
Actually, yes, many liberals do believe that we should be limited in our choice for personal transportation. President Obama is currently presiding over the changes at GM. Soon, a company famous for its sturdy trucks, SUVs, and powerful muscle-cars will be reduced to supplying the econo-products that the government (via CAFE standards) thinks the public should drive. GM won't be the only one...
June 4, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
AFWally (anonymous) says...
Limited in choice huh? That's Communism.
"Comrade you can only buy this type of car"
June 4, 2009 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
ltgrunt (anonymous) says...
Letstakeawalk, CAFE standards are about fuel efficiency. If someone at GM has the ability to make a big, sturdy truck that isn't terribly inefficient and such a pollutant, then more power to them. The new standards aren't meant to tell GM and other manufacturers that they can only make small cars or anything that silly. The idea is for them to make any kind of vehicle that can be competitive in regards to fuel efficiency, whether it's a car or a truck or it runs on gas, electricity or pixie dust.
Moreover, if an American company can produce a really efficient gas-powered car or a hybrid or all-electric car that's as fun and satisfying to drive as our classic muscle cars, wouldn't that just be awesome for everyone? Personally, that's why I'm looking forward to Dodge's Circuit EV:
http://www.allpar.com/cars/concepts/d...
Being limited in choice is somewhere between annoying and aggravating, Wally, it isn't Communism. Fast, violent overthrow of the political, social and economic elite by the working classes is Communism.
June 4, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
green123 (anonymous) says...
i think the best way to curtail crime in and around charleston is to have a metro police department. each city has its own police, just join the manpower together. combine all the police departments into one single police department. that way communication will be better, save money, etc.
June 4, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
So we are forcing our companies to be competitive. On one hand you have people wanting us to be so competitive in the global market that we push restrictions on them, but on the other hand you have the same people that get p'd off at wal-mart, because they are so competitive on the domestic market that no one can come close to them. I guess if it benefits the American complacency, were okay with that.
June 4, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
nopartisan_noproblem (anonymous) says...
It's good intentions green 123, but I think it could increase corruption.
June 4, 2009 at 2:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
yird (anonymous) says...
I can hardly wait for the first Chinese built Hummers to arrive at our local WE SCWU YU TU automotive dealership.
June 4, 2009 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
burton (anonymous) says...
I have seen first hand the efforts that Chief Zumalt has made in N. Charleston and all I can say is THANKS!! Now, it's time for the Mayor and council members to do their part by funding his dept/initiatives. Good job to Chief Mullen too!
For all you complaining, imagine what our society would look like and be like if we did not have the police and military to protect us? mmmmmmm
June 4, 2009 at 3:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fisher22 (anonymous) says...
haha you crazy to think CWPs reduce crime.
June 4, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
membermike (anonymous) says...
thank u cp&c 4 the ghetto update & the current conditions......
June 4, 2009 at 10:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
Posted by ltgrunt on June 4, 2009 at 11:18 a.m.
"If you're regularly in situations where you need the stopping power and clip size of a fully automatic assault rifle, it might be time to reevaluate your situation."
Lets keep this real ltgrunt, fully automatic weapons were heavily regulated by the 1934 gun control act. Now they are referred to as NFA weapons and require a lengthy back ground check which includes the submitting of finger prints & photo. In my entire 35 years of shooting and collecting I've never seen one privately owned. When you use that terminology you lead other people to believe that the assault weapons ban is about banning machine guns when it is absolutely not. The fact is that the so called assault weapons function no differently then any other semi- automatic rifle.
"It's not precise to say that liberal politicians are trying to limit gun rights, Nopartisan. It's more accurate to say that they're trying to balance rights with risks."
Actually thats precisely what they are doing! But not because they want to protect there constituents, but because of who donates to their campaign funds.
"Honestly now, who *really* needs an assault rifle to protect themselves, their family or their home?"
Yep! And who needs a computer and the internet to practice free speech. When the Bill of Rights were written there was no TV,radio,recorded music,cell phones,computers or the internet. I'll make you a deal, you get rid of all of the above and I'll go back to shooting a musket. Or, we can agree to stand up for the Constitution as is before it's nick-picked to nothing.
June 4, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
hairy1663 (anonymous) says...
Posted by fisher22 on June 4, 2009 at 8:25 p.m.
"haha you crazy to think CWPs reduce crime."
I'm living proof of it!
June 4, 2009 at 11:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Postandcourier.com is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. Postandcourier.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not postandcourier.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Users can now build user-to-user connections, follow friends' recent posts, add an avatar that fits their personality, and more. If you have posted here before you'll need to sign up again, or if you've never posted before, start now by signing up!
Full terms and conditions can be read here.