With the wildly high murder rates in Chicago and Detroit, will Pittsburgh follow that trend? (California: construction jobs, income)

[TheYO]

Originally Posted by Drover

Before you go patting your back about how Pittsburgh has managed to keep its murder rate in check, here's some news for you: year over year, Pittsburgh's murder rate is barely lower than Chicago's. It's just that yours doesn't get national attention because the President isn't from your city.

Detroit is in a whole different category altogether, as is St. Louis, New Orleans, Baltimore, Newark, Oakland, etc. But they don't get the scrutiny that Chicago does. Wonder why...

Chicago gets all the attention because the of the high number of murders. It's all media sensationalism. 500 murders in a year is a lot more attention grabbing than 58 murders per 100,000 people (New Orleans's murder rate). The media doesn't care about murder rate, it just likes to report big numbers.

[Uptown kid]

The difference between Detroit & Chicago is element of danger....
Chicago is by far the most violent & gang active City in America!!! Murder rate means nothing.

There is an estimated population of a 100,000 gang bangers in that city. There were over 500 homicides last year and only 25% of them were solved. Historically all of the gangs operated under a strict and organized hierarchie system that was pretty much identical to the military's. Yet these days anything goes, and now the OGs (leaders) are in their teens' & twenties'. In comparison Pittsburgh (where the killings are mostly taking place) is not bad, however, Chicago (where the killings are mostly taking place) is very, very bad!!!! I predict that te whole city of Pittsburgh will have fewer homicides then some Chi-Town neighborhoods like last year; weather it was: Black on Black, Brown on Brown or Black on Brown killing Chicago led the nation (with numbers not per capita crap).
Its simple, its the atmosphere that sets Chicago apart from the other cities: Chicago's gangs & hoods are more violent then Detriot's, Philly's, Baltimore's, St. Loius, New Orleans, Newark & Oakland's

[Drover]

Originally Posted by TheYO

Chicago gets all the attention because the of the high number of murders. It's all media sensationalism. 500 murders in a year is a lot more attention grabbing than 58 murders per 100,000 people (New Orleans's murder rate). The media doesn't care about murder rate, it just likes to report big numbers.

Then why don't New YorK and L.A. get the same scrutiny? In any given year they have as many or more murders as Chicago.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Uptown kid

The difference between Detroit & Chicago is element of danger....
Chicago is by far the most violent & gang active City in America!!!

BS.

Originally Posted by Uptown kid

Murder rate means nothing.

More BS. And tell that to the salivating media and all the slobbering troglodytes who are trying to hang Chicago's murder rate around Obama's neck.

Originally Posted by Uptown kid

Its simple, its the atmosphere that sets Chicago apart from the other cities: Chicago's gangs & hoods are more violent then Detriot's, Philly's, Baltimore's, St. Loius, New Orleans, Newark & Oakland's

[gg]

Originally Posted by Drover

Then why don't New YorK and L.A. get the same scrutiny? In any given year they have as many or more murders as Chicago.

This past year Chicago is going to get more scrutiny. Maybe it will be better in 2013 for Chitown.

NYC
Chicago Homicide Rate Spikes, While New York's Plummets

LA

Los Angeles crime rate down 2 percent in 2012 | abc7.com

[TheYO]

Originally Posted by Drover

Then why don't New YorK and L.A. get the same scrutiny? In any given year they have as many or more murders as Chicago.

Chicago actually had more homicides than NYC or LA last year.

LA: ~300
NYC: 414
Chicago: 506

[Clint.]

There's a lot of scrutiny in store for places where the murders are relatively random, e.g., school shootings, movie theater, serial killings, etc. When the victim knows the killer and there is some sort of ongoing feud that is gang/drug related there is a lot less collective concern because if you stay away from that lifestyle you are much less at risk; it's only when consequences start spilling over into non-participants (or police) do people start to get a little riled up. Otherwise, it's "one more dead gangster - who cares?".

Let's keep it in perspective. Here is some global data (total homicides to the left, homicide rate to the right):

--
List of cities by murder rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The only U.S. city to make the top 27 cut (by rate) is New Orleans, and it has the lowest number of total homicides. Hmm, what on Earth could be behind the high homicide rates in those cities/countries?

[Drover]

Originally Posted by TheYO

Chicago actually had more homicides than NYC or LA last year.

LA: ~300
NYC: 414
Chicago: 506

That's why I said "in any given year" rather than "every year." The scrutiny that Chicago's murder problem receives didn't just start yesterday. Most years New York has over 500 murders, and 414 is still a hell of a lot of murders. So sheer volume alone doesn't explain it.

I will concede though that bigger numbers are easier to sensationalize whenever someone with an agenda wants to or whenever the media gets bored. To wit, the first post of this thread frets about 40 murders in January in Chicago. For Pittsburgh to exceed that rate, there would only need to have been 5 murders.

And guess how many murders there were in Pittsburgh in January?

Answer: 5.

Well, how 'bout that.

But do you see any national headlines or the OP wringing his hands about it? Of course not, because 40 looks a lot scarier than 5 when you want to alarm people and/or when you'd rather live in denial about the problem in your your own front lawn by calling attention to the same weeds in someone else's lawn.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by h_curtis

Yep, 9 divided by 2 equals 22%. Therefore, the city council is about spot on and almost perfectly racially balanced if that for some reason makes a difference. Goodness what year is it? Isn't there a black president? Colin Powell certainly was a man of power. Chief Harper of the Pittsburgh Police? Come on, get over this crap. It is old and played. Race means very little if anything.

Race means very little depends on who are the ones getting beatings from the police and getting away with it. You have to admit that there is a big difference in having police chiefs in predominately black neighborhoods verses never having a black major in a city as old as Pittsburgh. Besides if you really look at the makeup of city council the only reason that there are two blacks seated is because they are in largely black districts. It would be pretty hard for any white person to be elected in those areas anyway.

Quick, name at least two blacks that have been killed by the PPD and have gone to jail and I can name just as many or more that have not.

You know that I respect your opinion, but there are alot of things that are swept under media rug regarding the police dept in Pittsburgh.

[simetime]

Originally Posted by UKyank

How is that not 22%? (22.222222222....% to be exact)

My fault, fuzzy math. But I put the actual number up for those who are not aware that there are only 9 on the city council in the first place. Many people would think that there would be more for a city that size.