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.
The numbers can be broken down anyway a person wants which can make the rate higher, they can be done be Zip Code, Block, Apartment complex ect. Per capita rates are only used to put the cities on a comparable level using the percentage of murders based on a cities population.
I know but idont think you understood what I was trying to say.
Where was I during that whole time lol. I grew up in Woodland Hills and never realized there was a crack epidemic! I kind of heard about gangs but never saw any....
Brooklyn, New York had about 800 murders in 92'. New York wasn't bad??? A walk through East N.Y. would change your mind quick fast. Born & raised in Brooklyn, just to let you know.
Chicago is the 90's was by FAR the most dangerous city in the country hands down no comparison. Lol at people saying Cali is, gangbanging in 75 degree weather next to palm trees, gimme a break Chicago projects on south and back in the day west sides were the most crime ridden places in America, google robert Taylor homes if you don't belive me.
Chicago is the 90's was by FAR the most dangerous city in the country hands down no comparison. Lol at people saying Cali is, gangbanging in 75 degree weather next to palm trees, gimme a break
lmao not this crap again. Yeah, becuase Palm trees are such great crime deterrents, they couldn't possibly exist in a ghetto
As far as housing projects there are a lot in California too...some of them are considered among the worst in the nation these days, and obviously they were much worse back in the 90s. You're right though, Chicago had one of the worst violent crime rates back in the early and mid 90s, along with Miami and St. Louis (all had violent crime rates from the high 2000's per 100,000 residents to 3000+/100k residents and up to 4000+/100k even, in Miami's case)...definitely the worst of the big US cities. They all had a much higher violent crime rate than any large California city at the time, though most CA cities were also pretty high themselves.
Nothing in any city rivaled the violence in Chicago's housing projects in the 90s. People use the term war zone a lot, but these places belonged in the Congo. They were bad. Police would go nowhere near them for fear of being sniped. Schools were closed on occasion due to violence and only reopened once a gang truce was reached. Rival gangs sniped at each other from the top floors of the high rises. Basic utilities only functioned on occasion.
In a single weekend in the Robert Taylor homes (population 27,000) there were 28 murders.
The worst I've seen on record in Chicago was Englewood in 91. The rate per 100,000 people was over 400 in that year, possibly over 500. But the projects were even worse than that so I can't imagine how the rate was in those places.
i'm not doubting chicago was bad back then, but there was no american city with a murder rate of 400 per 100,000. and chicago had a lower murder rate than washington, dc and new orleans in the 90s (and still does today) so there are two cities right there that not only rivaled the violence of chicago but surpassed it.
i'm not doubting chicago was bad back then, but there was no american city with a murder rate of 400 per 100,000. and chicago had a lower murder rate than washington, dc and new orleans in the 90s (and still does today) so there are two cities right there that not only rivaled the violence of chicago but surpassed it.
thats insane though how does 28 people die in a housing project.
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.