Los angeles---capital Crime City of USA? (Long Beach, Inglewood: jobs, housing, retire)

[Nysee53]

I think Chicago has higher crime than Los Angeles and it is considered to be a very safe town because of all the cameras and patrol people. Chicagoans tend to leave stuff unlocked a lot.

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by jksouthbay88

Well I don't live in LA but Baltimore Detroit DC are far worse than LA.Even St.Louis.I was in STL for a week and saw just about everything.I've been to LA about 250 times and only seen either people tagging or going through lights that just turned red. LA's crime rates as a whole are "manageable".

Truthfully speaking per-Capita stats do not tell the truth i have lived in Chicago ,St Louis , New Orleans and Newark . And now call i Los Angeles my home . Los Angeles plays the biggest tricks on people when you have upscale areas of Los Angeles Proper such as Encino , Bel-Air Brentwood , Palisades , Hollywood Hills and so on you will have a balance of good and bad . St Louis is bad but if compared to the lower income neighborhoods of Los Angeles its not as bad . Los Angeles has very upscale neighborhoods that St Louis doesnt have . Those upscale neighborhoods balance the crime rates tremendously . (Big cities like New York and LA are thankful for that) per-capita takes focus from the real problems of big cities . The fact remains that there are 220+ murders in the city of Los Angeles and 430 in Los Angeles county to this present date . The whole state of Missouri would have to be compared to Los Angeles County/Metro to get an exact comparison based on population & square miles . If you took 66 Square miles(The size of St Louis) out of South Los Angeles and made it its own city that would have a much higher rate then St Louis . Or if Encino , Brentwood , Bel-Air & Palisades decided to secede from Los Angeles . It would bring the LA crime rate up. Compton is 10 square miles and within the 10 square miles it is very bad . but lets say compton was stretched out another 30 square miles east or to the LA/Orange County line. Compton rate would change for the better . If you shrunk LA down to 66 square miles with downtown being the center point Los Angeles which would encompass East LA , South Central & Rampart areas LA's crime rate would be ridiculous . so you pretty much have to judge big cities by real numbers and not per-capita because big cities are more diverse in lifestyles vs smaller cities such as St Louis .


LA is very dangerous in some parts and LA is safe in some parts . It all depends on where you live . If you live in the Palisades you dont think about what goes on in Watts . If you live in Watts you dont think about what goes on in Brentwood . LA is a place unlike any other . good & bad

[mrxalleycat]

Depends on the AREA you live in in Los Angeles County. Yeah, I agree that there are good and bad parts of LA....you can go from having a movie star neighbor living next door to you to having ghetto slums

The wealthy pockets of Los Angeles in the Westside has a lower crime rate than the Southern Central areas of Los Angeles

Also, racial demographics & percentages can play a role in identifying which areas are hit with crime the most.

[Nysee53]

Los Angeles is actually a lot safer than Chicago. I think Chicago is interesting because it has higher crime, but it is not nearly as impoverished as parts of Los Angeles and parts of the rest of Southern California, but that hasn't stopped me from pushing this move.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by 9TheCityOfAngeles9

Truthfully speaking per-Capita stats do not tell the truth i have lived in Chicago ,St Louis , New Orleans and Newark . And now call i Los Angeles my home . Los Angeles plays the biggest tricks on people when you have upscale areas of Los Angeles Proper such as Encino , Bel-Air Brentwood , Palisades , Hollywood Hills and so on you will have a balance of good and bad . St Louis is bad but if compared to the lower income neighborhoods of Los Angeles its not as bad . Los Angeles has very upscale neighborhoods that St Louis doesnt have . Those upscale neighborhoods balance the crime rates tremendously . (Big cities like New York and LA are thankful for that) per-capita takes focus from the real problems of big cities . The fact remains that there are 220+ murders in the city of Los Angeles and 430 in Los Angeles county to this present date . The whole state of Missouri would have to be compared to Los Angeles County/Metro to get an exact comparison based on population & square miles . If you took 66 Square miles(The size of St Louis) out of South Los Angeles and made it its own city that would have a much higher rate then St Louis . Or if Encino , Brentwood , Bel-Air & Palisades decided to secede from Los Angeles . It would bring the LA crime rate up. Compton is 10 square miles and within the 10 square miles it is very bad . but lets say compton was stretched out another 30 square miles east or to the LA/Orange County line. Compton rate would change for the better . If you shrunk LA down to 66 square miles with downtown being the center point Los Angeles which would encompass East LA , South Central & Rampart areas LA's crime rate would be ridiculous . so you pretty much have to judge big cities by real numbers and not per-capita because big cities are more diverse in lifestyles vs smaller cities such as St Louis .


LA is very dangerous in some parts and LA is safe in some parts . It all depends on where you live . If you live in the Palisades you dont think about what goes on in Watts . If you live in Watts you dont think about what goes on in Brentwood . LA is a place unlike any other . good & bad

LA is like every other major American city, it has both GOOD and BAD parts. Yeah if you carved the worst parts out of LA and made it it's own city it would have a horrible crime rate; DUH!! It's a BIG CITY so it will have good and bad parts. Realize that not all cities are like St Louis and have not lost well over 50% of their peak population. LA is a big city so it has a MIX of people unlike those more crime ridden cities you speak of. Crime rates are the best measurement b/c it doesn't matter how big or small a city is, rates are not affected by population differences.

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by sav858

LA is like every other major American city, it has both GOOD and BAD parts. Yeah if you carved the worst parts out of LA and made it it's own city it would have a horrible crime rate; DUH!! It's a BIG CITY so it will have good and bad parts. Realize that not all cities are like St Louis and have not lost well over 50% of their peak population. LA is a big city so it has a MIX of people unlike those more crime ridden cities you speak of. Crime rates are the best measurement b/c it doesn't matter how big or small a city is, rates are not affected by population differences.

Crime rates are very much affected by the population differences / social status & gender. Anytime you use per-capita means per 100,000 . If you measure per-capita for a city thats pop. is 500,000 (100,000 x 5) vs a city of 4 million (100,000 x 40) obviously you will get different results and the city with the higher population will have a "safer status" because of the opportunity that a city of that magnitude has . Raw numbers always give better direct detail when you measure a big city in the United States . Stats are a way of generally stereo typing people and are used to give cities , states & ethnicity's good or bad reputations instead of just telling it the way it is . Compton borders Los Angeles but it is considered much more dangerous by stats but it is neighbored by districts such as Watts which are located in the city of Los Angeles that are just as bad if not worse then Compton . Just as the City of Beverly Hills is synonymous with wealth and is looked and often considered (by people that dont live here of course) the richest area in LA metro . it as not as exclusive or wealthy as Holmby Hills or the Bel-Air sections of LA , But is often considered that based on the overall median income vs the city of Los Angeles' median income .

Comparison: Beverly Hills has a higher median income then LA but
Select Neighborhoods/Districts in LA has higher median income than Beverly Hills . Q: How is that possible ? A: Because of population differences .

A couple of years ago a neighborhood in LA, Boyle Heights a section East Los Angeles was the most dangerous neighborhood of the United States quoted by dateline . "More people die in that concentrated area then any other area of that size in the United States of America" , But Boyle Heights doesnt have any effect on other areas such as Westwood or Tarzana, which are also districts of Los Angeles proper but worlds away from the terror . What does any of this prove ? It proves that crime stats are not as useful for a city this big and raw numbers are a better choice for a city of 4 million


Comparison: St Louis is the most dangerous city statistically .
Select Neighborhoods/Districts in Los Angeles have the highest concentration of murders and in the US . Q: How is that possible when LA's murder and crime rate are lower than St Louis or any of the dangerous other cities ? A: Because of population differences .

[bettedaviseyes]

I lived in L.A. for three years and never experienced any crime. Maybe I was just lucky, but I am certainly not afraid of living in that city.

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by bettedaviseyes

I lived in L.A. for three years and never experienced any crime. Maybe I was just lucky, but I am certainly not afraid of living in that city.

Thats like saying i lived in LA and i havent experienced an earthquake . It doesnt mean they dont exist

it all depends where most people dont experience crime in most places . But ,im sure you didnt live in a ruff neighborhood of Los Angeles either.

[summer111]

The difference between LA and OC is that LA has extremely wealthy parts and then extremely dangerous parts, but OC is more uniform throughout.
In OC, you can go to Irvine, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo...and all these areas are safe.
However, in LA, one part may be very good when suddenly a few streets down it is bad. That's why you have to be so careful in LA; you have to know where you're going or else you could end up somewhere bad. It's not because all of LA is horrible, it's because you need to know the safe and unsafe spots very well.

[9TheCityOfAngeles9]

Originally Posted by summer111

The difference between LA and OC is that LA has extremely wealthy parts and then extremely dangerous parts, but OC is more uniform throughout.
In OC, you can go to Irvine, Mission Viejo, Laguna Niguel, San Clemente, Lake Forest, Laguna Hills, Newport Beach, Costa Mesa, San Juan Capistrano, Laguna Beach, Aliso Viejo...and all these areas are safe.
However, in LA, one part may be very good when suddenly a few streets down it is bad. That's why you have to be so careful in LA; you have to know where you're going or else you could end up somewhere bad. It's not because all of LA is horrible, it's because you need to know the safe and unsafe spots very well.

well spoken