Is it a brutal reality that San Francisco is NOT a safe city overall? (San Diego: hotel, live in)

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by sav858

Sure, just not as safe as other cities like NYC, Denver or San Diego though. Safety is problem more a concern for residents than tourists.

Use whatever list you'd like b/c none of them show SF as the 2nd most visited city in the US.

Have you ever lived in San Francisc0?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Have you ever lived in San Francisc0?

In the city no, but I was born and raised in the Bay Area.

What does that exactly matter at this point?

[rah]

Originally Posted by Boompa

Murder Rate is expressed in Murders per 1,000 of population not per sq mi.
Most murders are committed by someone either related to or well known by the victim. So you would have to seperate those out.

Robberies would also be expressed per 1,000 of population not per sq mile
I would expect San Francisco to be high for robbery since it is the 2nd City for tourism in the country

Did you miss the parts of that post where i listed the rates per 100,000 residents? I don't really see how you could miss that if you actually read the post. I posted incidents per square mile just to give a sense of how concentrated the crime is (of course crime isn't evenly distributed, but i find average incidents per square mile interesting and possibly a bit useful when looked at in conjunction with other crime stats). of course SF is high because it had a pretty high crime rate back then, and it's also very small geographically.

And i agree with sav, you do seem like the typical SF crime denial type. We've given you stats to prove you wrong...you said SF is much safer than Denver and SD. That's not the case though, and it hasn't been the case in the past 27 years (which is as far back as i can find crime stats). No one is saying its a DANGEROUS place (and really what city is completely "dangerous" in this country? Or most countries for that matter?), but SF has a lot more crime than many people realize, including you, it looks like.

and for the record, I'm an SF native who's spent lots of time in San Diego. As far as vibe in bad areas, SF's definitely seem a little more sketchy to me, overall.

[KRISTINsf]

A homeless guy threw a hot cup of coffee all over me. I wasn't hurt but it ruined my brand new jacket. This was on Kearney and Market in the Financial District.

I also witnessed some crazy looney punch three women all walking along Kearney St in the Financial District. He was just walking along and one by one, punched these unsuspecting women square in the face drawing blood and breaking glasses. Witnesses called police but he got away. I read about some whacko like that in the SF newspaper about a year prior. I hope it was the same guy.

[thinkin about it]

As a tourist, I felt safer in san fran than just about any city I've ever been to. As a single male, I view cities using the following generalized criterion:

Are the most enjoyable areas of the city/the areas that I wish to hang at unsafe? In san fran, absolutely not. In Detroit, absolutely yes.

It's correct to say that san fran isn't a 100 percent enclave of love and tolerance where the financially destitute give you free roses and wish you a totally far out day. But it's insane to call it a "dangerous city." If you've got any semblance of intelligence at all and don't put yourself in dumb situations, san fran is a very safe city.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by sav858

Sure, just not as safe as other cities like NYC, Denver or San Diego though. Safety is more a concern for residents than tourists imo, of course assuming the tourist uses common sense and isn't looking for trouble.

Use whatever list you'd like but none of them show SF as the 2nd most visited city in the US.

I truly question those statistics. I have been a Police Supervisor and I have lived in several large cities. To insinuate that 1% of the population of San Francisco was Robbed last year is ridiculous. Robbery is different than Burglary or Theft, in a Robbery things are taken from YOU. Perhaps whoever was compiling these has rolled up theft and burgary into robbery which then means the same incident could be counted two or three times.
I set up Police Software to automate compilation of stats and know where I am coming from.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by thinkin about it

As a tourist, I felt safer in san fran than just about any city I've ever been to. As a single male, I view cities using the following generalized criterion:

Are the most enjoyable areas of the city/the areas that I wish to hang at unsafe? In san fran, absolutely not. In Detroit, absolutely yes.

If you're comparing the better areas of San Francisco to the better areas of Detroit, then obviously. Detroit is consistently the most dangerous city in the nation. (Highest violent crime rate according to United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

How would SF stack up to other cities roughly in the 'average' crime range (i.e. LA, Phoenix, Minneapolis/St. Paul)? I wouldn't think there is a huge difference safety-wise between the good areas of these cities.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Boompa

I truly question those statistics. I have been a Police Supervisor and I have lived in several large cities. To insinuate that 1% of the population of San Francisco was Robbed last year is ridiculous. Robbery is different than Burglary or Theft, in a Robbery things are taken from YOU. Perhaps whoever was compiling these has rolled up theft and burgary into robbery which then means the same incident could be counted two or three times.
I set up Police Software to automate compilation of stats and know where I am coming from.

See, here's a perfect example of another thing with the SF crime-denial types. Even when you point out the cold hard stats that show the crime rate of SF (which do not even show SF that dangerous of a big city), they will tell you that the stats can't possibly be correct.

[Boompa]

Originally Posted by Radical347

See, here's a perfect example of another thing with the SF crime-denial types. Even when you point out the cold hard stats that show the crime rate of SF (which do not even show SF that dangerous of a big city), they will tell you that the stats can't possibly be correct.

Crime stats are political, want higs to look good it's a manslaughter, not good it's a homicide. As I said about rolling up stats, a burglary is usually a burglary and a theft which is then counted as one crime not two. It is not a robbery.
A stolen car is not a robbery unless it was a car jacking. I set up the calculating software in several locations and people were always shocked at how different the real stats were.
Since I have no vested interest in your believing me, you can keep your opinion I'll keep mine, but mine has been recognized in court

[mohawk925]

theres worse areas than tenderloin by far i been there but i would hang out in tha tenderloin for an hour before i even think about steppin foot into tha alemaney, sunnydale, doublerock projects.....tha tenderloin is right around tha corner from union square it is not that bad HP and those projects is wat u need to worry about....protero hill to.