Oakland: #4 most dangerous city in America (Compton, Huntington Park: fences, gangs, public transportation)

[goldenchild08]

Originally Posted by rah

Are you an idiot, being an idiot about things, like an idiot would? Hmmmm.... (PS: you spelled "hestor" wrong)

in other news....Oakland is sooooo bad OMG:

Muni Driver Accused Of Killing Alleged Pimp: News: SFAppeal
Two Killed In Wednesday Night Shootings: News: SFAppeal
Local Hair Dresser Identified As Man Found Dead In Diamond Heights: News: SFAppeal
Dogpatch Shooting Sends Woman To Hospital: News: SFAppeal
SFPD Needs Your Help To Catch Double Dutch Bar Homicide Suspects: News: SFAppeal
Man Stabbed By Acquaintance In SOMA: News: SFAppeal
Man Accused Of Polk Street Coffee Shop Homicide Ordered To Stand Trial: News: SFAppeal
Two Suspected Arsonists Arrested For Fires At Castro Muni Station: News: SFAppeal
DA Gascon: Cyclist Who Struck Pedestrian "had a need for speed," Will Now Face Manslaughter Charges: News: SFAppeal

...oh wait, that's all San Francisco, not Oakland? OH GOD I'M SO CONFUSED. Nevermind, let me get back to my latte.

Yes, nothing is more infuriating than the undying outsider perception that SF is all gays and sun rays and Oakland is all thugs and drugs. SF is actually doing tourists and visitors a huge disservice by being so blatantly dishonest about SF's high crime areas. Three people were robbed at a gunpoint in three separate armed robberies in Lakeview two days ago. That's because Lakeview is jacking everything from a pizza man to a taxi just like they were back in 94'. People call the police because of gunfire almost everyday of the year in Lakeview.

Ocean View police calls | EveryBlock San Francisco

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

Yeah because the already have all of that in the East Side, and Evergreen.

East Side has long shirts and and Nortenos, at worst. Evergreen is looking more and more like Cupertino, which isn't exactly the scariest town one can experience. Nothing in the South Bay rivals the Tenderloins and HP/BV's featured up north.

[mayorhaggar]

lol, now Fantastic is branching out and trolling San Jose too.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

lol, now Fantastic is branching out and trolling San Jose too.

Could L.A. be next?

[Bushrod King]

Interesting how Mr. Fantastic can make one complaint and instantly get people banned. Oh that's right he's one of the Mods troll accounts.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by Bushrod King

Interesting how Mr. Fantastic can make one complaint and instantly get people banned. Oh that's right he's one of the Mods troll accounts.

It is intriguing that he can get people banned even though he has nearly everybody on "Ignore".

[CF510]

Originally Posted by Nineties Flava

The amount of danger any city has is relative to the population you're talking about. looking at the whole population, yeah Oakland is more dangerous than San Francisco. Looking at the black population - the population most affected by crime in both cities - SF generally has a significantly higher murder rate for blacks than Oakland does despite having a significantly lower O/A murder rate. It is entirely possible for SF to be more dangerous for one group of people than Oakland is for that same group of people.

From my own personal experience, I find SF to in some ways be a more "raw" city than Oakland... the bad areas of Oakland might look run-down (and even then a lot of them don't) but in SF the people generally look a lot more run-down. For one thing there's infinitely more homeless in SF than in Oakland. For another, the poverty in many of SF's projects simply does not exist anymore in Oakland... there is nothing in Oakland that remotely resembles Alemany or Sunnydale or even Potrero Hill. Oakland's projects are actually well-maintained and renovated regularly... the Acorn Apartments look like regular apartments to most people, as do the Lockwood Gardens, Tassafaronga Village, Cypress Village, etc. The last truly dilapidated project in Oakland - Greenside - was closed a couple years ago. That doesn't necessarily make them safer, but it does give them much more of a feeling of community involvement than what you'll find in Oakdale for example. With the exception of SF's Western Addition and Mission District, Oakland's projects are also far more integrated into the surrounding neighborhoods and cityscape... the projects in SF all but occupy their own world that has zero connection to the city of SF other than their address.

You see the poverty difference between Oakland and SF in all facets of the city. MUNI makes AC Transit look nice and orderly... everybody actually pays the fares (nobody takes the backdoor like on MUNI) people are (usually) more polite and you generally don't get the kind of crazies on AC Transit that you get on MUNI. The vast majority of the parks in Oakland aren't full of dealers and junkies like you get at GGP or many of the other big parks in SF. Even in the poorest areas of Oakland people tend to look and act more clean-cut and not as downtrodden/desperate as people do in the equivalent areas of SF. IMO a lot of it just comes down to the fact that the QOL for the lower class is better in Oakland than in SF. Everyone is much more cramped in SF and it's much more impersonal... Oakland doesn't have the same big city vibe as SF and as a result feels more relaxed.

I agree with all of that, but the fact is that Oakland generally has more crime than San Francisco not considering the factors that would make you likelier to be a victim of those crimes. Oakland has more crime than San Francisco, but if you're not a gang member or drug dealer walking around at 3 in the morning then your chances of being victim to one of those crimes is considerably lower.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by CF510

I agree with all of that, but the fact is that Oakland generally has more crime than San Francisco not considering the factors that would make you likelier to be a victim of those crimes. Oakland has more crime than San Francisco, but if you're not a gang member or drug dealer walking around at 3 in the morning then your chances of being victim to one of those crimes is considerably lower.

I don't get this reasoning.

People say "Well if you're not a gang member in Oakland, you have less of a chance of being a victim of crime" as if that makes the crime a non-factor to living in Oakland.

But isn't that statement true about any city? If you're not a gang member, or drug dealer in Stanton, or Richmond, or anywhere else known for gang violence, aren't you less of a target?

The simple fact is, all things considered equal, Oakland has more crime per capita than San Francisco, and by simple mathematical conclusion, you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in Oakland, than S.F.

[john3232]

Oakland reminds me of Dallas. Dallas is a city with pockets of nice neighborhoods which often border the more crime ridden areas. There really isn't any way to avoid interacting with the criminal elements esp. if you ride public transportation. You constantly need to be aware of your surroundings when out and about and I suspect this is the case with Oakland as well.

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

...People say "Well if you're not a gang member in Oakland, you have less of a chance of being a victim of crime" as if that makes the crime a non-factor to living in Oakland.

But isn't that statement true about any city? If you're not a gang member, or drug dealer in Stanton, or Richmond, or anywhere else known for gang violence, aren't you less of a target?

The simple fact is, all things considered equal, Oakland has more crime per capita than San Francisco, and by simple mathematical conclusion, you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in Oakland, than S.F.

Exactly and using the city of Dallas again...There's a much greater risk of getting robbed while waiting for a bus or walking to your car in Dallas than many of the surrounding suburbs that's for sure.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I don't get this reasoning.

People say "Well if you're not a gang member in Oakland, you have less of a chance of being a victim of crime" as if that makes the crime a non-factor to living in Oakland.

But isn't that statement true about any city? If you're not a gang member, or drug dealer in Stanton, or Richmond, or anywhere else known for gang violence, aren't you less of a target?

The simple fact is, all things considered equal, Oakland has more crime per capita than San Francisco, and by simple mathematical conclusion, you have a higher chance of being a victim of crime in Oakland, than S.F.

Can the math. If you look or act like a homie, you bring trouble unto yourself. If not, then don't worry. Why the F is this so hard to understand, Fantastic?