Just your basic unarmed mall security.

Llewellyn park is gated...I know that. There is a guard at the main Street entrance.

Basic security at the gate. They do drive around some, but there's a lot of space in there, and it's probably quite possible to hop the fence in multiple places.

RAK

While crime happens everywhere, the simple fact remains that there is less crime than there was 8 years ago and half as much as there was 15 years ago.

If you perceive that "it's gotten worse and worse," it is probably due to the more immediate and widespread reporting of the crime that does occur...due to the Internet...rather than there actually being more crime.

To confirm what I'm telling you, the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports for West Orange can be viewed at http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

Two year old crime reports do not reflect the reality of today and the fact that the increase in crime in West Orange is a reality. Those living in West Orange know all too well that crime is drastically up and we don't need to turn on our computers or connect to the internet to find that out.

wohopeful:

The reality over the last 16 years, up to and including today, is that crime is in general decline in all areas...violent crime in particular. While there was a spike in property crimes (burglaries, car thefts) in 2011, the crime rate is still essentially half of what it was in 1997...and no amount of your repeatedly saying that's not true will make it so.

One can only guess that it takes a week for these breaking crime reports to become news "... due to the more immediate and widespread reporting of the crime that does occur...due to the Internet." (as noted above).

Ricky:

There are exception to every rule and the fact that the reporting of this story was not a stellar example of "immediacy," it's still a given that far more people will hear about it, due to the Internet, than when the once weekly West Orange Chronicle was the only source of local news.

Abandoning common sense for the moment, and taking everything you claim at face value, are you saying that a reduction of 31% isn't a significant one? What YOU fail to acknowledge is that prior to 1997, police had discretion in reporting domestic violence incidents that does not exist today. There was also a significant under-reporting of bias crimes. Where exactly do you get the figures for the added 283 combined domestic violence and bias incidents, or do you just assume that must be the case?

The figures I discovered cited 101 domestic violence incidents in WO for 2011.

http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2011/pdf/2011_domestic_violence.pdf

Top right of page 26.

That same report shows 1 reported bias incident in WO for 2011.

http://www.njsp.org/info/ucr2011/pdf/2011a_bias_incident_rpt.pdf

Top right of page 21.

That would mean your guesstimate is off by 182 incidents for a grand total of 975 criminal incidents in 2011.

The sky certainly is not falling.

David, I meant "Thanks for correcting YOUR error."

Reality check for John, first of all the statement was offered in the form of a question. You certainly didn't acknowledge that it was a significant drop, so I have no idea what you're trying to say now. The point being that your 31% figure isn't close to correct either. Your assessment of how you believe crime statistics SHOULD BE calculated, doesn't make you more correct than Gary or anyone else. Clearly the DOJ disagrees, or domestic violence and bias reports would be included in those latest figures. The figures you declare are not 50% but 31% are actually closer to 44%. Take that fact as you may. The fact still remains that police had more discretion in reporting domestic violence incidents than they do today. There are also unit that specifically address bias incidents, making for more accurate reporting. That too is a fact. How do I know that you ask? I was part of that system. Care to tell us what your qualifications are to attempt to contradict what I know? Crime is down nationally from the 90's, so it doesn't surprise anyone who knows, that domestic violence is part of that trend. Your rant essentially says nothing more than you have a thing for Gary Englert,

Jeff, the town doesn't buy zoo/golf/arena items; that's the county. And the vast majority of traffic lights that I can think of offhand are at intersections involving county roads, not town-only ones, which I'm pretty sure also makes those the county's responsibility. Not saying more police wouldn't be a good thing (though I'm unsure if a realistically possible number of new hires could really make a difference in the types of crimes we're seeing), but complaining about county expenditures isn't going to help find those town dollars.

Also, what new traffic light?

Also, anyone know if the street crimes unit is making a dent yet? I hear lots of scanner traffic related to them making traffic stops and interviewing people they see on the street, which should at least in theory get word out to criminals that they're more likely to be noticed/stopped, which should in turn encourage them to go ply their trade elsewhere.

Ken, the traffic lights are ALL the ones along main street and elsewhere that are painted black. Those are all new. Nearly every single light, lamppost, signal etc that had been working perfectly fine were replaced by near replicas, albeit painted black instead of raw steel. I can only hope that the decision was made because the new lights are more energy efficient, not because someone, somewhere decided they needed to spend the budget to justify what they're seeking for the following year. Thanks for the info about the tram though.

The reality is the numbers went down. The criteria for a DV report has not changed. As a matter of fact, police are required to take reports where they once were not required, as in the case of verbal disputes. I heard a story a few days ago where the responding officers were required to take a report because a family member called 911 to complain that her husband had purchased too much beer that week. Not that he was intoxicated, or even argumentative. This is what mandatory reporting and no discretion brings you. An increase in population only means an increase in criminal reports if those crimes are committed, and reported. The fact that you can't embrace the fact those numbers are down is your issue, not WO's problem. The fact is in 2011, the total for bias and DV incidents is 102, not 283, as you like to throw around as though misrepresenting the numbers will suddenly change that fact. No one is questioning the numbers from 1997, so what's your point? Who does it serve to eliminate DV numbers from the totals? I seriously doubt that 1-3 Bias reports impact the totals enough for you to make an argument, and the reasoning behind eliminating DV stats is obvious for anyone interested in seeing it absent an agenda. Why are you trying to make a comparison between 2011, and the 1997 DV and Bias crime numbers when there is a 181 incident difference? Your argument fails with that fact. Your "cause I say so" posture simply isn't going to work here.

David Englert says there were 874 reported crimes in 2011. You say there were 976 reported crimes in 2011. Are both those numbers correct?

John, What I said is by the formula YOU insist reflects a more accurate picture of crime, the numbers would be 976 in 2011. Still a significant drop from the 1686 incidents they were being compared to from 1997. Your need to offer false narratives only exposes the weakness of your argument, as well as their grossly suspect intent.

John, Is there a point in any of that nonsensical attempt to contradict my factual statement? DV incident reports are still mandatory today, and they still were not always mandatory. DV incident calls are the deadliest for responding officers. Every cop knows that domestic dispute radio runs and pick ups can be volatile, so what's your point? What does that have to do with the fact that what were once referred to as Family Dispute calls, did not always require that the responding officer file a report? The numbers were still higher before, the numbers are still down nationally, and you still have yet to substantiate any of your assertions. None of those facts change with your apparently desperate attempts to make points where there are none.

Tom Englert says there were 874 reported crimes in 2011. David Peart says there were 976.They're both right, but it's very likely one of them is wrong on how they arrived at their total. Mr. Peart also states there is now mandatory reporting of domestic violence incidents.There has been an increase in the population of West Orange. Gary Englert and Mayor/Police Director Parisi, among others, say the increase in crime in West Orange is partly attributable to the bad economy. Parisi is the Police Director, after all. Now combine all those factors, and the reported incidents of domestic violence in 2011 were DOWN about 65% from the 1997 total. Look at the very large number and types of very serious crimes that have been reported on PATCH that will never appear in the. Uniform Crime Report.

Just a short time ago,I was able to look at the Uniform Crime Report for West Orange going back to 1996. Felony possession of a dangerous controlled substance, possession of a dangerous controlled substance with intent to distribute, selling drugs, purchasing drugs, buying and/or selling drugs in a Drug - Free School Zone, where are those statistics., I think , as I do, U C R intelligence is being insulted.

@Gary - Exactly. It's funny how every time people hear about a crime they automatically assume crime is "on the rise". People need to accept that a certain level of crime will always occur. Just because an individual becomes aware of that crime or is somehow personally affected is not indicative of any trend.

Crime may be down as of 15 years ago. I'll give you that. But is it down or up from 9 years ago? In other words, 15 years ago, crime might have been at an all time high for this area. But if things improved over time, and people like me began moving in to town in the mid 2000s because things seemed hunky dorey, then to our experiences, crime IS on the rise. As I said in a previous post, in nine years time there had been no armed robberies in my neighborhood. Now there've been two in just a couple weeks. In nine years being here, I've never once been awoken in the middle of the night by a police helicopter doing search patterns over our house. The internet has been around for longer than nine years, so it's difficult for me to accept your argument that i'm only now "just becoming aware of it because of the internet"

No less an authority than David Peart says that there were 976 criminal incidents in 2011.That number includes 1 bias incident and 101 domestic violence incidents. I have a question .If the UCR doesn't list crimes like arson, terrorism threats that compel the authorities to have buildings evacuated, luring, and endangering the welfare of a child, does that mean these incidents didn't happen? Or could it mean that they did happen, but the powers - that - be don't regard them as incidents that are serious enough to be included in the Uniform Crime Report?

Gary
My name is Tom.
The reports you refer to are not worth the paper they are printed on or the site they are posted on.
Armed robbery and violent crime is on the rise in West Orange and it is unacceptable.
We don't need to blame the Internet for our awareness or claim that these sorts of crimes happen everywhere...because they DON'T
We need to be vigilant in reporting suspicious activities and people and our Police need to experiment with new methods to combat the recent violent crime surge.

Tom The number of reported crimes in West Orange for 2011 has been adjusted from 874 to 976. Can, you imagine, very serious illegal acts that have been reported just on Patch such as luring[s], terrorism threats that compel the authorities to order buildings evacuated, endangering the welfare of a minor, DUI et al DON'T qualify for the Uniform Crime Report.

Scott (anonymously hilarious):

As my service to Assemblyman McKeon is unpaid and voluntary, my time is my own to do with as I please; made all the more productive since the advent of smart cell phones, iPads, etc., and engaging in a dialogue here is no heavy lift, nor is it time consuming.

I need not analyze, investigate and/or second guess the Township's Uniform Crime Reports as I know the men running the department, respect them as the educated, competent and dedicated law enforcement professionals that they are...and fully trust that they're not cooking the books.

Again, those of you suggesting that they are need to support your allegations; it's not up to me to refute them when universally accepted data already exists. If you've got something better, and/or with more gravitas, bring it on.

Rather than "shooting the messenger," the thrust of most of my posts is that people should rely on scientific method when examining any situation and not fall victim to irrational fears based on very subjective and unsubstantiated personal opinion.

The fact that you and the rest of your ilk continue to post this nonsensical "the sky is falling" crap carries absolutely no weight...and even less so since none of you have enough courage of conviction to put a name, face or reputation behind the opinions.

The same can't be said of me.

There is a principle in comp sci known as garbage-in-garbage-out. The UCR stats are only as good as the voluntary reports sent to FBI. Due to errors, nonreporting, misreporting, or downgrading of crimes (stemming from departmental or political pressure) the UCRs are not completely representative of reality. Does the FBI audit or validate the data in any way to assure the accuracy of reporting? Is there any penalty imposed on a local agency for underreporting or misreporting?

Say, for example, a city launches a marketing campaign to attract businesses and homebuyers after a layoff has cut the police force. Might there be some political pressure to underreport or misclassify certain crimes under to demostrate low crime numbers? There have been numerous reports (NYT, Village Voice, Philadelphia Inquirer and Daily News) about the manner in which crime statistics reported to the FBI have been manipulated. Google "UCR misreporting".

Violent crime in West Orange is increasing and no amount of deflection by changing the subject to Tom's anonymity or repeating what the UCR says will change that. Enough with the "don't believe your own lying eyes".

"in order to demonstrate low crime"* (typos)

in ORDER to DEMONSTRATE low crime ** (there - fixed it for ya).

HMV:

Any citizen wishing to take the time and effort to do so can file an OPRA request for the relevant police reports( for a specified period of time and crime), and then compare them with the numbers reported on the Township's UCRs.

Anecdotal information and/or a news report from one media outlet or another is scant evidence that fudging these reports is widespread, let alone that it's being done in West Orange.

There is, however, potentially quite significant reason for the over reporting of crime as it would tend to bolster police requests for more manpower, better pay, benefits, equipment, working conditions, etc., as it is law enforcement professionals who compile the reports.

The bottom line is you need to prove your premise as the generally acceped data (the UCRs) simply don't support it.

Gary Englert: (hilarious)

While you, as a "legislative aide" to John McKeon obviously have an abundance of free time (evidenced by no fewer than 205 PAGES -- not COMMENTS, PAGES -- of comments† under your Patch profile), many other people who have fulltime private-sector employment do not. The fact that you keep repeating the same crock in the comment section of every article on Patch does not make it so. Your strange need to respond to every comment, to minimize other people's concerns, and to attack the messenger is duly noted.

If you've filed the OPRA request and done the independent analysis that supports your repetitious claims, please share it along with your methodology. Otherwise, your opinion carries no more weight than anyone else's does. If your neighborhood hasn't been hit yet, just wait for it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

†http://westorange.patch.com/users/gary-englert/comments?page=205 (it may be 206 pages by now)