City Murder Rates

[KevinFromTexas]

So, no one thinks that with the pandemic going on and the economic issues that caused that people aren't moving out because they can't afford to stay? And no one thinks the stress and economic frustration the pandemic caused isn't making crime worse?

And Chicago is just overwhelmingly American, and so it has American problems.

[VivaLFuego]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Chicago has just so much going for it. A nice lake shore location, great cultural amenities, fantastic restaurant scene, wonderful architectural heritage, a very vibrant downtown, a good transit system, and a real character.

Despite all these wonderful attributes, the city has a lousy reputation to the point of where the first thing you think of when you think Chicago is it's horrid levels of crime and murders.

Which is interesting, since as far as the per capita rate is concerned, Chicago is pretty comparable to places like Atlanta and Washington DC.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by VivaLFuego

Which is interesting, since as far as the per capita rate is concerned, Chicago is pretty comparable to places like Atlanta and Washington DC.

but the big aggregate numbers chicago routinely throws up on the scoreboard do stand out in the crowd.

to those that don't want to be bothered with critical thinking, 700 is way more than 200, so "OMG dude! it's like totally getting out of control there!".


but yes, when it comes to atrocious levels of violence in US cities, chicago unfortunately has PLENTY of bad company.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, no one thinks that with the pandemic going on and the economic issues that caused that people aren't moving out because they can't afford to stay? And no one thinks the stress and economic frustration the pandemic caused isn't making crime worse?

And Chicago is just overwhelmingly American, and so it has American problems.

In San Francisco property crime has changed but is definitely worse whereas violent crime may be down.

The trouble is that you can't trust the statistics. Due to a fairly recent change in the law:

Petty Theft
California law defines petty theft as the theft of any property with a value of $950 or less. Most petty thefts are charged as misdemeanors, which carry a sentence of up to six months in county jail, a fine of no more than $1,000, or both. However, if the property has a value of $50 or less, the prosecutor can charge the offense as an infraction, so long as the offender has had no other theft-related conviction. Petty theft charged as an infraction is punishable by a fine of no more than $250. (Cal. Penal Code § 490 (2020).)

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...alties-defense

The SFPD basically doesn't bother trying to solve misdemeanor crimes unwitnessed by a cop. And they know our ultra-progressive DA (the son of 2 murderers now in federal prison) won't prosecute them. I've been told by shop owners that when they call about shoplifting, the police won't even come. And the web site Nextdoor is full of people complaining that the police told them it's a waste of time reporting these crimes so they don't bother. Hence much property crime goes unreported.

Nevertheless, here are the numbers so far in 2021:


https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.co...alties-defense

Murders are counted separately and only Jan/Feb are available but in those 2 months there were 7 in 2021 vs 4 in the same months in 2020. The total for 2020 was 47 and for 2019 it was 41.

Regardless of the untrustworthy stats, most observant San Franciscans have observed that car break-ins, which used to be at epidemic levels in SF are down, we are told because tourists are the favorite targets of people who do that crime (because they leave stuff in their cars) and there are no tourists. But at the same time, shop-lifting is up big time. 2 Walgreen's drug stores near my neighborhood have closed because they kept being ripped off so badly by people who would walk into the stores with shopping bags, fill them up and boldly walk out . . . and, as I said, the cops wouldn't even bother coming. And there's a new phenomenon: Residential garage break-ins, often by force (simply prying garage doors open with crowbars or whatever it takes). And sometimes the thieves first disable any security cams. I've never heard of so many garage doors simply forced open before the pandemic.

Finally, "porch pirates", aka package thieves, have always been common in SF but they are worse now. Most apartment buildings have some mechanism to keep out non-residents, but the thieves seem well able to defeat them and steal any packages left by UPS, Fed-Ex or the post office in lobbies.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Black flight, just as with all urban flight, is a multi-faceted issue with a variety of different push/pull factors.

Yes, violent crime is one of the biggest push factors (I would say it's probably the #1 push in chicago, especially for anyone with young children), but I fail to see any issue with journalists investigating and writing about perhaps the greatest demographic crisis of 21st century chicago.

I mean, isn't that kinda the exact fucking shit that journalists should be writing about?


Reducing a massive and complex demographic shift, like the one chicago is experiencing, down to an inane and overly-simplistic single-word answer like "crime", is something that I actually would file away under "braindead".

I should have been more descriptive. What I mean is I see these stories from time to time and they usually skate around crime, some not even mentioning it! *That* is the issue, not the fact that they are writing these stories or even that they aren't saying crime is the ONLY reason (of course it isn't the only reason).

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

So, no one thinks that with the pandemic going on and the economic issues that caused that people aren't moving out because they can't afford to stay? And no one thinks the stress and economic frustration the pandemic caused isn't making crime worse?

And Chicago is just overwhelmingly American, and so it has American problems.

Yes, but you are talking about the margins.

First, most unemployed have enjoyed benefits they have never seen before. Many are having a hard time finding new employees. Low-wage employees are making more on unemployment now than they did working in many cases.

Second, losing your job doesn't cause you to murder someone. That makes zero sense.

[KevinFromTexas]

Property crime is what I would expect now with people maybe struggling financially, I guess. The violent crime thing seems to be more a symptom of frustration and desperation. Mental health was a big argument against lockdowns. Bottomline, humanity ain't pretty.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I should have been more descriptive. What I mean is I see these stories from time to time and they usually skate around crime, some not even mentioning it! *That* is the issue, not the fact that they are writing these stories or even that they aren't saying crime is the ONLY reason (of course it isn't the only reason).

I don't think I've come across an article about black flight in chicago that didn't talk about violent crime as one of the big push factors, so links would be appreciated.

If such articles really do neglect to talk about it as one of the big factors in the equation, then yes, that would be dishonest.

[bossabreezes]

I love how some people think its okay to excuse violence, lol.

Sure, rationalization is a human thought but at the end of the day- it doesn't matter. If you chose to hurt others, you're a horrible, moral-less human.

[Doady]

Originally Posted by bossabreezes

I love how some people think its okay to excuse violence, lol.

Sure, rationalization is a human thought but at the end of the day- it doesn't matter. If you chose to hurt others, you're a horrible, moral-less human.

To fight violence, you need violence. Violence is mostly gun-based, so to spot violence, you need police, with guns. You need citizens armed and ready to protect themselves, with guns. That is the root of high homicide rates in cities like Chicago: many people who are poor, so they are less able to afford guns and ammunition.

And let's not forget: if a gang member kills another gang member, that's one less gang member, one less killer off of the streets. That's why I think that using homicide rates a measure of public safety is extremely misleading. If the victims of violence themselves are the main perpetrators of violence, then high homicide rates are actually a good thing because it is making our cities safer.

[Handro]

Originally Posted by Doady

To fight violence, you need violence. Violence is mostly gun-based, so to spot violence, you need police, with guns. You need citizens armed and ready to protect themselves, with guns. That is the root of high homicide rates in cities like Chicago: many people who are poor, so they are less able to afford guns and ammunition.

And let's not forget: if a gang member kills another gang member, that's one less gang member, one less killer off of the streets. That's why I think that using homicide rates a measure of public safety is extremely misleading. If the victims of violence themselves are the main perpetrators of violence, then high homicide rates are actually a good thing because it is making our cities safer.

Is this a quote from The Onion?

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Doady

To fight violence, you need violence. Violence is mostly gun-based, so to spot violence, you need police, with guns. You need citizens armed and ready to protect themselves, with guns. That is the root of high homicide rates in cities like Chicago: many people who are poor, so they are less able to afford guns and ammunition.

And let's not forget: if a gang member kills another gang member, that's one less gang member, one less killer off of the streets. That's why I think that using homicide rates a measure of public safety is extremely misleading. If the victims of violence themselves are the main perpetrators of violence, then high homicide rates are actually a good thing because it is making our cities safer.

We also need more brave officers willing to mildly risk their jobs by selling weapons (and drugs! drugs reduce violence!) on the side.

Originally Posted by Handro

Is this a quote from The Onion?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Doady

To fight violence, you need violence. Violence is mostly gun-based, so to spot violence, you need police, with guns. You need citizens armed and ready to protect themselves, with guns. That is the root of high homicide rates in cities like Chicago: many people who are poor, so they are less able to afford guns and ammunition.

And let's not forget: if a gang member kills another gang member, that's one less gang member, one less killer off of the streets. That's why I think that using homicide rates a measure of public safety is extremely misleading. If the victims of violence themselves are the main perpetrators of violence, then high homicide rates are actually a good thing because it is making our cities safer.

but what do i do when i can no longer distinguish between a gun and a fresh hot dog? should hot dogs be able to defend themselves from my mouth (when theres not a glock in it proactively defending itself and its freedom from my hot dog shaped fingers covered in ketchup and mustard?)


best regards

[Steely Dan]

^ ketchup?!?!?!?!?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ ketchup!?!?!?!?!

hey at least we arent talking about putting ketchup on bratwurst fingers..............

[Steely Dan]

^ sorry, few things can more strongly trigger a chicagoan.

we care about really important stuff.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Doady

To fight violence, you need violence. Violence is mostly gun-based, so to spot violence, you need police, with guns. You need citizens armed and ready to protect themselves, with guns. That is the root of high homicide rates in cities like Chicago: many people who are poor, so they are less able to afford guns and ammunition.

And let's not forget: if a gang member kills another gang member, that's one less gang member, one less killer off of the streets. That's why I think that using homicide rates a measure of public safety is extremely misleading. If the victims of violence themselves are the main perpetrators of violence, then high homicide rates are actually a good thing because it is making our cities safer.

People are making fun of this because they aren't thinking.

I just read an article from NPR in Chicago that interviewed a man who said he carries a gun (illegally) because its worth the risk. He would chance getting arrested with it rather than being caught on the street by someone else without it. Poor and dangerous neighborhoods basically require carrying guns if you want to be "safe".

And yes, a gangbanger killing another gangbanger is in theory a good thing.

However, it doesn't work out that way. All it does is cause more killings because of retaliation. And that retaliation can take place anywhere, putting innocent people in danger. Also, there is an endless supply of gang members. As soon as kids turn 12 or 13, the older members indoctrinate them to do certain crimes because they will never get charged. Hence why Chicago carjackings are "down" (teens get a lesser charge for carjacking, which isn't even considered a carjacking). So just letting them kill themselves off will never work, barring a Purge-type setting for many months.

It's actually very simple to end this shit:

1. Keep violent people in jail.
2. Actually charge them, stop dropping or lowering cases.
3. Spend money on youth mental health services and mentoring.
4. Give the option of boarding school.
5. Encourage people to marry, single-parent homes are the single most accurate indicator of future crime.
6. Allow kids to go to technical training schools where they can make money DURING high school. Poor kids love money, and it shows them a better way.


Theres probably another 100 things we could do besides that. The point is that most of this is WELL worth the investment and could pay dividends.


However, under our current climate all you hear is:

SUPPORT THE COPS

DEFUND(or abolish) AND PUT THAT MONEY INTO THE COMMUNITY.

Stupid bumper stickers that mean nothing. We need both and we need to be specific about what we want to see.

[Emprise du Lion]

Originally Posted by photoLith

Thats crazy, didnt know the loss of the black population was that high. Is there any studies as to where they are moving to?

Also, have all of the other demographics been increasing, or are other demographics leaving too?

The Tribune had a feature on this back in 2019, and looking at the Census estimates from 2013-2017 they were able to figure out that black Chicagoans leaving Illinois entirely were going elsewhere in metro Chicago (primarily Indiana over Wisconsin), metro Atlanta, metro St. Louis, metro Indianapolis, and metro Houston in that order.

I'm frankly curious where in metro St. Louis they're moving, because St. Louis proper is dealing with its own black flight issues as well.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Chicago has just so much going for it. A nice lake shore location, great cultural amenities, fantastic restaurant scene, wonderful architectural heritage, a very vibrant downtown, a good transit system, and a real character.

Despite all these wonderful attributes, the city has a lousy reputation to the point of where the first thing you think of when you think Chicago is it's horrid levels of crime and murders.

Which we thank them for taking the PR bullet for. St. Louis was by far the most dangerous city in America last year, but the average American will definitely think Chicago is worse.

Meanwhile we're sitting at 61 homicides this year. We're apparently up 40% over last year, which was the most dangerous year in the last 50 years for us.

This summer is going to be a blood bath

[tech12]

Oakland is at 13 murders, down from 24 at this time last year.

SF is at 10 murders, down from 12 at this time last year. Shooting victims at this point are up 181% over last year though, from 26 to 73.