Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Pow! Oof! 3 assaults in 36 minutes in Bethesda, sex offense in Pike District + more - Crime update

Here's a roundup of crimes reported across Bethesda on June 20, according to crime data:

Assault. 7700 block Woodmont Avenue at 3:15 AM.

Theft. Elm Street at Arlington Road.

Theft. 4700 block Willard Avenue.

Theft. 5400 block Wisconsin Avenue.

Theft. 5400 block Wisconsin Avenue.

Drug arrest. 6400 block Bells Mill Road.

Theft. 9100 block Kittery Lane.

"Other sexual offense." 5600 block Nicholson Lane at 1:52 PM (Pike District).

Theft. Westfield Montgomery Mall.

Assault. 7300 block Westlake Terrace at 3:39 AM.

Assault. 10500 block Rockville Pike at 3:03 AM.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

Holy bar closing time Batman!

Betsy said...

Not really that nice to make fun of assaults...

Robert Dyer said...

Who's making fun?

Anonymous said...

Pow, oof... The title seems a bit insensitive to violent crimes perhaps.

Robert Dyer said...

5:21: On the contrary, it's dramatizing the violent nature of these serious crimes that aren't getting much attention from the mainstream media. Pow! Oof!

Betsy said...

Ok well as a sexual assault victim I don't find it particularly funny or effective, and certainly find it offensive and insensitive.

Robert Dyer said...

These crimes were assaults, not sexual assaults. It's not meant to be funny. It's meant to call attention to unusual violence in Bethesda. 3 assaults in 36 minutes is pretty unusual for any part of Montgomery County, for that matter.

Anonymous said...

Assault is an extremely broad category. Could be as simple as someone spitting on someone or throwing a single punch outside a bar. Of course the police might not be called for things like that. So wtf is going on with the huge increase in assaults being reported? For all we know the police blotter now uses a different definition for what's reportable.

Anonymous said...

RD you "are" ridiculing a serious offensive to which you give no descriptive information regarding by the use of those childish adjectives. Either report the crime stats with additional narrative, as true journalistic publications do, or give it up. This section is just banal.

Steve D. said...

Banal? Yes, crime is so boring isn't it? Can't see why the lower classes are always making a fuss about it.

Anonymous said...

You cry babies are so easily offended it's ridiculous. Get over yourselves already. Every new college freshman should be forced to take this class: "Your Hurt Feelings Are Meaningless And The World Doesn't Owe You Shit 101"

Anonymous said...

one day Dyer is boohooing a lack of (oh, dear!!) signage (WAHH!) to tell him the street coming up isn't perfectly level, and the next day his readers are complaining about Dyer's insensitivity in exclaiming "Pow!" and "Oof!" about assaults (sexual or otherwise-- who cares!!) Grow the f#$%k up.

Robert said...

4:53 - Did you just say who cards about assault (sexual or otherwise)?

Robert Dyer said...

6:42: The fact that you are (yet again) somehow bringing competing websites into the discussion proves that (yet again) this is just another off-the-wall attack on this site by "Anonymous" trolls representing those other sites.

"As true journalistic publications do"? There isn't any site providing more "true journalism" in Bethesda than this one.

Do you like getting heavily-edited and spun crime reports weeks after the crime wave has blown through your neighborhood? Well, fortunately for you, there are other sites providing that late information for you.

You're in no position to declare whether I am ridiculing something when I've made abundantly clear I'm not. People are free to (mis)interpret anything how they please. But they aren't permitted to change the facts. When the comments are anonymous, anyone can claim anything, and we don't even know who is a real person and who is someone trolling from a council member's office or a competing website.

When other websites use describe sex offenses in unnecessarily graphic detail for "journalistic" purposes, I haven't seen you comment. Yet you're claiming the words "Pow! Oof!" are "offensive"?

Please.

Robert Dyer said...

4:53: "Readers"? Nice try. Don't tell me - "Wahh!" "Whaambulance" "EEEWWWW" "pants on head" "true journalism" "crazy" "expletive" --- Do you really think you can keep using the same repetitive words and phrases and convince people all these negative comments aren't posted by the same person?

Again, this is just the latest wacky attack to try to disrupt a successful website.

Anonymous said...

Actually, I WAS the one that originally posted the "pants on head, window licking short bus" comment! I notice it's been used a number of times since then by other people though! Which is great! As for the other comments-- nope! not me! By the way, I really do enjoy reading this blog, Dyer, and I hope you continue reporting on our neighborhood... it's just that the hyper-sensitivity to being ffended-- both yours and others'-- is pathetic and embarrassing. UNEVEN STREETS! POW! OOF! ASSAULT! DEAL. WITH. IT.

Anonymous said...

* offended

Robert Dyer said...

7:51: Trust me, you're the only person using the "pants on head" comment. I have to point out that there's quite a difference between someone misinterpreting a crime report headline and the violation of laws that regulate disability access. The uneven street is illegal, as well as a legal liability issue for the county. When someone slips on a department store floor, they don't sue the janitor, they sue the store.

Anonymous said...

Trust me, Robert, I know what I read. In any case, you're actually wrong, they're not in violation of ADA or any other accessibility statutes, federal, state or local. There are allowances for construction, etc. You should stop trying to make legal determinations, you're not qualified to do so. So then, quite frankly, it just becomes trite bit#$hing, and it's annoying. Just one guy's opinion. I do appreciate your blog, though, the vast majority of the time! Cheers.

Anonymous said...

One more thing Robert: when someone sues a store for a slip-and-fall and they prevail, it's because there was an expectation of safety, nothing obvious and visible to warn them of elevated risk, and negligence involved in failing to address the issue. You have NOTHING like that here. For one thing, you can easily SEE that the street is CLEARLY torn up. That alone is dispositive! But even then, the road is EASILY in a condition that a reasonable person exercising reasonable caution should be able to navigate it! There would be absolutely no claim here, LOL.

Robert Dyer said...

9:09: You're speaking more from a defense attorney's perspective about how to beat a customer claim. Whatever merit your legal argument has prevents neither the act of the plaintiff filing the suit, nor the risk that a particular jury might award the plaintiff in court.

There is not even signage to warn someone of uneven surfaces. There is no alternative route for the disabled. It is also far from a "temporary" situation. The whole point of disability access is to prevent some citizens from having to make extra efforts to access any particular location. To say you must turn around or find an alternative way is a violation of the disabled person's civil rights to equal treatment. This crosswalk is not legal.

Anonymous said...

If your vision is good enough to be able to read signs, it's good enough to see that the pavement is uneven.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Robert, you're wrong. I know your ego and tilted world view won't allow you to see that, and you have a very weak (if at all existent) understanding of law, legality, and legal procedure. You're just barely smart enough to convince yourself that you know enough about a little to make estimations based on your gut instinct, but you're not smart enough to know the difference between that and reality.

Robert Dyer said...

7:09: And if it isn't?

Robert Dyer said...

10:29: "Just barely smart enough." I guess that's why I was on the Dean's list every semester in college, right? You're claiming nobody can sue the county if they fall on an uneven surface it maintains, and you expect people to think you're smarter than me?

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, Robert. I never said the county couldn't be sued. Reading: it's fundamental, even if you're on the Dean's list. Anyone can sue anyone else for almost any reason whatsoever. Prevailing-- now that's something else entirely.

Anonymous said...

Haha no he's not! And your insistence shows your ignorance.

Anonymous said...

Leave it to Dyer to make fun of women and victims all at once and then be unapologetic about it.