Baltimore reports lowest monthly homicides in city's recorded history
BALTIMORE — In April, the city of Baltimore saw the lowest number of monthly homicides in its modern history.
After a historic decrease in the number of homicides in 2024, the downward trend has continued into this year, and in April, Baltimore recorded just five homicides, according to the Baltimore Police Department. This is the lowest number of monthly homicides in the city since it started recording the data in 1970.
'This is progress, but we aren't stopping to celebrate,' Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott said in a post on X. 'Five homicides in April is still five too many — and we will continue to use all tools at our disposal to prevent violence and save lives.'
Of the five homicides in April, four were instances of gun violence. All of the victims were Black men.
In a statement released Thursday, Scott attributed the city's decrease in violent crime to the work of the Baltimore Police Department, as well as the community violence interruption programs in Baltimore and Maryland State government.
'While there is still much work to be done, these numbers show that we're moving in the right direction, together,' said Baltimore Police Commissioner Richard Worley in a statement.
Not only has Baltimore's number of homicides and non-fatal shootings fallen by 31.6% and 27.1%, respectively, but the city's homicide clearance rate has increased nearly 10%, currently sitting at 76.9%.
_____
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
18 minutes ago
- USA Today
My hometown of LA has right to be angry as Trump sends in the Marines
My hometown of LA has right to be angry as Trump sends in the Marines | Opinion Even if you think the crackdown on illegal immigration is necessary, it is not conservative to crash through neighborhoods to round up people who have become part of the community. Show Caption Hide Caption LA protesters ignite Waymo taxis, see the remains Protesters vandalized and set Waymo autonomous taxis on fire amid anti-ICE protests in Los Angeles. My hometown of Los Angeles has witnessed an outpouring of intense, and to varying degrees violent, protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers who are engaged in detaining illegal/undocumented immigrants. The protests have precipitated a mobilization of the National Guard, and even the dispatching of a small contingent of Marines, as protesters collide with ICE and other law enforcement officers. The federal involvement signals an escalation in what has become the most striking episode of civil unrest in California since the summer of 2020. The alarmism surrounding Los Angeles is understandable. The fury over the immigration issue also is understandable. I am born and raised in LA. I'm generally conservative on the immigration question. But it is important for us to take a nuanced look at the outrage we are seeing in Los Angeles. Consequences of illegal immigration have hurt my community Undocumented/illegal immigration (take your pick) has had a damaging impact on certain communities in Los Angeles for many years. That impact has been most concentrated in Black communities, which have largely dissolved due to the overwhelming influx of immigrants, particularly from Latin America. Political marginalization, wage competition and the strains placed on public benefits and the public school system have outraged many members of Black Los Angeles. That was one of the primary issues in my congressional campaign against Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters in 2014, when Black activists in the district allied with the GOP largely because of concerns about immigration. Two years later, I went door-to-door in Los Angeles to recruit participants for a University of Southern California study on eye health in the Black community. At one point, I found myself speaking to an older Black woman who had a newspaper propped up on her sofa. Headlines declared the victory of newly elected President Donald Trump. 'Do you have a problem with my newspaper?' she asked, noting my glance toward it as we spoke in her living room. 'Well, if you do, then you can just get the hell on. I voted for this man and you know why? Because he is going to get rid of these damn illegals who are ruining our community.' Opinion: Waymo cars get torched by LA protesters, burning Google – an immigration ally Black Angelenos have been affected by violence, often in areas where law-abiding citizens already have to fear greater than normal rates of crime. The strain on public services also represents a financial burden on taxpayers. Other pressures placed on an already crowded city by increased numbers of immigrants stoke frustration. All these problems are real. People are right to call attention to them. But that's not all there is to the story. Illegal immigration is more nuanced than many believe The nuances occupy a couple of categories. There are benefits to undocumented immigration that accrue to the upper middle class and certain businesses. That much is clear, even if it's not a privilege that Americans living outside of Los Angeles' suburban middle class care to preserve for them. But cheaper services, domestic work, construction and automotive labor are things many people often benefit from by way of undocumented immigrants. It's become a way of life for much of Los Angeles' upper economic classes. When I say "way of life," I am referring to something deeper then the mere economic. I am talking about the culture of communities, the norms and relationships we grow accustomed to. This is the second category of nuanced reality people need to understand when observing Los Angeles in this moment. It's the nuances of community. Illegal immigrants and their families, including their children who've inherited birthright citizenship, are part of our community. They are the abuela with the tamale stand by the park, the mechanic you joke around with at the auto shop or the gardener who feels like an uncle. The kids I went to school with in Culver City, who were made citizens by virtue of a constitutional interpretation that I believe violates the 14th Amendment, were my friends. They were no less a part of my community for having undocumented parents. People who have lived their lives generally at peace with their undocumented neighbors and their families have stronger bonds with these immigrants than with the faceless ICE agents who burst into our neighborhoods to remove people we know. Opinion: What do Republicans value? My fellow conservatives need to fight the right way. Now, I have a great deal of sympathy for ICE agents as well. They are the spear tip of an effort to respond to the neglect of territorial sovereignty perpetrated by the U.S. government for generations. It is one of the great betrayals of American interests, in favor of politicians and corporations, that unchecked illegal immigration should have reached such a scale over such a period of time. I don't blame federal agents for doing their job or for believing in it. This doesn't change the fact that, in Los Angeles, ICE agents are the ones who look like aliens. Trump's deportation policy stands in the shadow of American history All of this highlights an irony in the Trump administration's approach to rectifying the immigration issue. As conservative as the principles of national sovereignty and rule of law are, conservatism also stands for the continuity of community, the respecting of norms, customs and relationships that give a place its character. These norms and relationships sometimes evolve in initially unlawful or tragic circumstances. American frontiersmen invaded Native American territory, even against the edicts of the U.S. government, at almost every turn in the early expansion of our nation. We can say that happened long ago, so it doesn't matter now. But would it be right to uproot families now because of the unlawful invasion of Native American territory generations ago? Many of those who are most incensed about the porousness of our border and the accommodations we make to the undocumented are also the most proud of our American founding and the frontier spirit of our heritage. There are differences of opinion with respect to the scope of deportations, even among those who advocate for a crackdown on illegal immigration. Some favor deporting only flagrant criminals; others want those who crossed the border recently to be returned to their home countries. Then there are some who favor deporting as many illegal immigrants as possible, regardless of their behavior and their contributions since arriving. For those who argue for mass deportation, how can we look at illegal immigrants as criminals without regarding in the same way our own ancestors who invaded Native Americans' territory and violently displaced the inhabitants? If the view is that our American ancestors, while worse than imperfect, laid by God's grace the foundation for communities that grew into a great nation, then isn't there a case to be made for charity and accommodation in dealing with most of our undocumented neighbors now? Of course, certain people make having empathy for the undocumented very hard. That includes not only those who wave Mexican flags in the face of legal authority while insisting on their "right" to remain in the nation illegally. It also includes their allies who take zero inventory of the damage done to communities and to the rule of law by policies that allow for mass illegal immigration. Still, when my best friend's first son was born, I remember his mother, an elderly woman who immigrated to the United States decades ago, approaching me at the celebration of her grandson's birth with a gift basket that held a Mexican flag and an American flag. She said to me: "Mi nieto es un Mexicano y un Americano tambien." ("My grandson is a Mexican and an American too.") Her point was that her family was proud of their heritage, but they were also proud to be a part of a nation and a community that she and I shared across the gulf of language and legal status. LA has a right to be angry. But we need a better answer. Personally, I might aggressively shut the border, and build a wall if it actually helped, because I believe that we blew past a reasonable volume of immigration a long time ago. It's a good thing that Trump has essentially frightened the world into no longer trying to cross our border illegally. That had to end. Democratic politicians like California Gov. Gavin Newsom have invited the pendulum swing on immigration by pushing it so far the other way. Now, Trump, never one to be concerned with proportionality, threatens to escalate tensions further in the name of rule of law. Yet, even if you think the crackdown on illegal immigration is necessary, it is not conservative to crash through neighborhoods to round up people who have become part of the community. America must understand that Los Angeles is not Omaha, not Savannah and not Des Moines. Los Angeles has a right to be angry. Los Angeles has a right to be LA. There should be a better way. Sadly, it seems like nobody is looking for one. John Wood Jr. is a columnist for USA TODAY Opinion. He is national ambassador for Braver Angels, a former nominee for Congress, former vice chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County, musical artist, and a noted writer and speaker on subjects including racial and political reconciliation. Follow him on X: @JohnRWoodJr
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Aurora City Council will not hold in-person meetings until Kilyn Lewis lawsuit concludes
DENVER (KDVR) — Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman announced Tuesday that the city's council meetings will be held virtually to prevent disruptions while a lawsuit filed on behalf of a man shot and killed by police works its way through the court system. The message was echoed on the council's webpage. The webpage includes instructions for how members of the public can view the meetings or provide public comment on agenda items. However, all public comment listening sessions have been canceled until further notice. Family of man killed by Aurora police last May files suit against city, officer who fired deadly shot The measure was voted on during the June 9 council meeting, with seven in favor, three against, and two members in debate. In May, the council addressed a resolution that would change how it accepts public comment. 'As of right now, criminally, Michael Dieck did not murder Kilyn Lewis,' said councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky. 'It's in the court's hands now, and I would like to suspend this to be virtual until we have an official ruling from the court as to whether or not the city is liable in any way, shape or form for the death of Kilyn Lewis. Because if we are not in fact liable in any way, shape or form for the death of Kilyn Lewis, there is nothing left to discuss, and there's no reason for you to come back.' Jurinsky added that if the ruling takes years to reach, then she's on board with having virtual meetings until the ruling. Family and friends of Kilyn Lewis have held protests during several Aurora City Council meetings. The group has been seeking justice after the 37-year-old was shot and killed by an Aurora police officer in May 2024. In October, the district attorney ruled that an officer who shot Lewis would not face charges. In late May, Lewis' family filed a lawsuit seeking accountability from the Aurora Police Department in their loved one's death. It discusses excessive force, wrongful death and violations of the family's constitutional rights. 'This lawsuit is not just about a dollar amount. It's about truth. It's about making sure that the life of a Black man like Kilyn Lewis is not so easily discarded,' said MiDian Shofner, CEO of the Epitome of Black Excellence and Partnership and lead advocate for the family, in the May 28 announcement of the case filing. 'No amount of money can bring him back, but since America has made money the metric for justice, the family is rightfully pursuing every legal remedy available.' Coffman wrote on Facebook that he believes the group is simply looking for a check, and then they will 'go away.' Deadly shooting of Kilyn Lewis leads to new Aurora police SWAT policies: Report 'Until then, they will continue to disrupt our meetings. They have no choice but to continue disrupting our meetings because their lawsuit is meritless. This is why we have no choice but to stop all in-person council meetings, and go virtual, until their lawsuit has been concluded,' Coffman wrote. He noted that an Arapahoe County Grand Jury was also asked to review the case and declined to pursue charges against the officer. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Ditched by Trump's EEOC, job applicant advances bias lawsuit against Sheetz
This story was originally published on HR Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily HR Dive newsletter. A Black job applicant who alleged that gas station chain Sheetz disproportionately screened out Black, Native American, Alaskan Native and multiracial applicants moved to continue his case June 5 after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission abandoned it. EEOC filed a class-action lawsuit in April 2024 alleging that Sheetz maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for past criminal convictions and rejected those with such records. This practice violated Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, EEOC said in a press release, because it had a disparate impact on applicants of certain racial backgrounds. However, the agency moved to have the case dismissed last week because it determined that the disparate-impact claims would conflict with President Donald Trump's April 23 executive order directing agencies to cease enforcement of such claims. EEOC asked the court to defer dismissal of its claims by 60 days to allow the commission to notify class members so that they could obtain private representation. The legality of Trump's executive order on disparate-impact claims proved contentious, with one of EEOC's own administrative judges calling the order 'highly illegal.' But the June 5 filing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania is one of the first examples in which the order has been put into practice. Trump said the end of disparate-impact liability enforcement was necessary because it inhibited businesses from hiring applicants on the basis of merit and skill. He also said that disparate-impact liability is unconstitutional and 'threatens the commitment to merit and equality of opportunity that forms the foundation of the American Dream.' The push to end disparate-impact liability is one of the goals stated by the conservative Heritage Foundation in its 'Project 2025' presidential transition document. The organization wrote that the concept should be thrown out because under disparate-impact theory, 'discriminatory motive or intent is irrelevant; the outcome is what matters. But all workplaces have disparities.' That logic has been met with resistance by former Democratic officials of the U.S. Department of Labor and EEOC, who said in May that disparate-impact liability is explicitly outlawed under Title VII and has been upheld by U.S. Supreme Court precedent. The former officials cautioned employers that they should avoid following Trump's executive order so they do not violate federal laws. 'Disparate impact liability is a necessary element of advancing equal opportunity for all, consistent with America's national commitment to equal justice,' the officials wrote. In a press release, plaintiff-side firm Outten & Golden, which is partly representing the job applicant in the Sheetz case, said EEOC had spent nearly a decade investigating the claims at issue and had found a basis to allege evidence of systemic discrimination. 'Our client has a right to be judged on his qualifications, and not to be denied a livelihood by policies that exclude people with stale convictions that are unrelated to the job,' said Ben Geffen, senior attorney at the Public Interest Law Center and a co-representative for the plaintiff, said in the press release. 'When the government steps back, we step in. We will not allow political interference to wipe out hard-won legal protections.' A similar dynamic played out following EEOC's abandonment of several lawsuits it filed on behalf of transgender workers alleging discrimination following an executive order from Trump. Advocacy groups have since filed to intervene on behalf of plaintiffs in those cases. Recommended Reading Shell Oil did not discriminate in hiring decision, 5th Cir. says
