Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
East Palo Alto in the San Francisco area had the highest murder rate in 1993 which was the highest for any U.S. city murder rate since the late 19th century at 172.7 per 100k.
East Palo Alto in the San Francisco area had the highest murder rate in 1993 which was the highest for any U.S. city murder rate since the late 19th century at 172.7 per 100k.
A previous post said it had 42 in '92 and 4 in '93. Howd that happen in just 1 year
A previous post said it had 42 in '92 and 4 in '93. Howd that happen in just 1 year
Yeah that was wierd that East Palo Alto had 42 murders in 1992, or a rate of 172.7 per 100k, and only 42 murders from 1993-1999, or an average annual rate of 23.5 per 100k. On the flip side, the average annual rate in East St. Louis was like 120 per 100k from 1990-1999.
Yeah that was wierd that East Palo Alto had 42 murders in 1992, or a rate of 172.7 per 100k, and only 42 murders from 1993-1999, or an average annual rate of 23.5 per 100k. On the flip side, the average annual rate in East St. Louis was like 120 per 100k from 1990-1999.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharif662
That's putting it lightly. Half the 90s was around that number.
Yeah Chicago had 800 / 900 homicides from 1990-1994*
That's ridiculous.
Harlem and the South Bronx both had MORE people than Compton and murder rates over 100. Robberies were also universally higher in NYC than in LA. LA had palm trees and private homes, NYC had abandoned buildings and vacant lots. Like I said before, LA was blood/crips, NYC was drug organizations.
Sounds like you grew up watching 90210 lmao
The Southside of Los Angeles had nothing glamorous about it.Keep it mind crack cocaine started in Los Angeles and than it spread back east.There were no private homes in Watts or South Central LA"
Now I do agree the Bronx was vicious but so was Compton and Oakland.Look at NYC today and you'll even see Los Angeles gang culture all over the 5 boroughs.
The Southside of Los Angeles had nothing glamorous about it.Keep it mind crack cocaine started in Los Angeles and than it spread back east.There were no private homes in Watts or South Central LA"
Now I do agree the Bronx was vicious but so was Compton and Oakland.Look at NYC today and you'll even see Los Angeles gang culture all over the 5 boroughs.
I'm not necessarily saying that one was worse than the other. I just wanted to point out that there were large swaths of NYC which had as high or higher a murder rate than Compton, Watts etc. I will say for a fact that NYC looked worse than LA, there is not comparison. However, that would be the case for any east coast city as compared to the west coast. Lastly, it was two different types of dynamic. You weren't going to get killed in Harlem for having red or blue on, I would say 85-90% of the homicides were drug related, as opposed to LA, which I would guess at least 75% of the homicides were gang related.
Yeah that was wierd that East Palo Alto had 42 murders in 1992, or a rate of 172.7 per 100k, and only 42 murders from 1993-1999, or an average annual rate of 23.5 per 100k. On the flip side, the average annual rate in East St. Louis was like 120 per 100k from 1990-1999.
East St Louis homicide rate was higher than 120 back then. It should average around 140-150 in the 90s. I can't recall which year in the 90s , it reach 67 with a population around 46K.
Lastly, it was two different types of dynamic. You weren't going to get killed in Harlem for having red or blue on, I would say 85-90% of the homicides were drug related, as opposed to LA, which I would guess at least 75% of the homicides were gang related.
The drug related deaths in NYC ( and other metros) was stated to be around 34-36% of the cause during that timeframe ( read in NY times article). Majority ( roughly 60%) stems from the same domestic/personal disputes like present day. L.A gang related homicides contributed to a rough 40-45%, Chicago's was similar as well.
Personal/Domestic disputes have always lead in a plurality to majority of homicides in metro cities nationwide.
East St Louis homicide rate was higher than 120 back then. It should average around 140-150 in the 90s. I can't recall which year in the 90s , it reach 67 with a population around 46K.
1991 and pop. was just over 41k. 1992 saw 65 murders with the same pop. The city was experiencing murder rates above 100 consistently since 1988 during that era.
What's interesting about the crack era in Illinois during those years is that Chicago itself was actually a late-comer to the epidemic, whereas it was much more rampant in some of the most impoverished suburbs(Harvey, Robbins, Ford Heights etc.) and East St. Louis, initially during the late 1980s. The reason being is that the gang leaders in the city prevented the drug from becoming too popular at first. One of the reasons given was because it would had quickly replaced the already existing heroin business, despite that nearby towns and East St. Louis where it was primarily distributed also have Chicago-based gangs. It probably gives some explanation as to why the city during a good portion of the 80s was not as bad in the coming decade regarding homicide count.
1991 and pop. was just over 41k. 1992 saw 65 murders with the same pop. The city was experiencing murder rates above 100 consistently since 1988 during that era.
Thanks for the info.
What's interesting about the crack era in Illinois during those years is that Chicago itself was actually a late-comer to the epidemic, whereas it was much more rampant in some of the most impoverished suburbs(Harvey, Robbins, Ford Heights etc.) and East St. Louis, initially during the late 1980s. The reason being is that the gang leaders in the city prevented the drug from becoming too popular at first. One of the reasons given was because it would had quickly replaced the already existing heroin business, despite that nearby towns and East St. Louis where it was primarily distributed also have Chicago-based gangs. It probably gives some explanation as to why the city during a good portion of the 80s was not as bad in the coming decade regarding homicide count.[/quote]
Nope. I'll say a few gang leaders may have overlook it or solely focus on heroin trade. Vast majority would of capitalized on it. Homicides during the 80s wasn't that vastly different from the 90s. I did learn something new about the surburbs & crack trade though. Geography really does play a variety of roles.
Last edited by Sharif662; 06-01-2019 at 02:48 PM..
Reason: Additional info.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Boredatwork
