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.
Another dynamic is the distribution of crime in the city/county/metro. From what I understand about St Louis, for example, is that most of the violent crime in the city is concentrated in the northern half of the city, with the southern half being relatively much safer. At the same time, there is East St Louis, a separate city, that appears to have no safe neighborhoods. There are some small suburbs west of the city that also have high violent crime rates.
In as another example, Rochester has a small footprint and many of its neighborhoods have a high violent crime rate. It is the most violent city in the state, even though it's only the 3rd largest in population. Meanwhile, there are arguably NO Rochester suburbs that have high rates of violent crime, and some of them are consistently rated as the "safest cities" in the nation.
Even with Rochester, most of the violent crime is in "the Crescent", which are the inner city neighborhoods from just NE of Downtown going West to just SW of Downtown. There are still many nice neighborhoods within the city of Rochester too. Same with my city, Syracuse and most others.
Well if they did that the crimes of serial killers ,rape,child molestation ,kidnapping & would officially become a "white" problem because the majority of the people that commit these crimes around the USA are White Americans.
An interesting tidbit: In the early 2000's Baton Rouge had a serial killer and the reason it took so long to catch him was because everybody thought they were looking for a white guy. It turned out to be a black man named Derrick Todd Lee. Here the only common violent crimes are gun crimes, rape, and assault, and they are all typically (at least from what I can tell when I watch the news reports) poor African Americans from the "bad" side of town. Every now and then we get reports of some white trash domestic dispute gone wrong, but not very often.
Well if they did that the crimes of serial killers ,rape,child molestation ,kidnapping & would officially become a "white" problem because the majority of the people that commit these crimes around the USA are White Americans.
What about drunk driver/alcohol related deaths as well? Check these stats out: Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide Trends in the United States: (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm - broken link)
An interesting tidbit: In the early 2000's Baton Rouge had a serial killer and the reason it took so long to catch him was because everybody thought they were looking for a white guy. It turned out to be a black man named Derrick Todd Lee. Here the only common violent crimes are gun crimes, rape, and assault, and they are all typically (at least from what I can tell when I watch the news reports) poor African Americans from the "bad" side of town. Every now and then we get reports of some white trash domestic dispute gone wrong, but not very often.
im not talking about Baton Rouge im talking about the over all America Demographics and the majority of serial killers , rapist & pedophiles are not african americans .
im not talking about Baton Rouge im talking about the over all America Demographics and the majority of serial killers , rapist & pedophiles are not african americans .
Was not trying to argue, I was simply pointing out a case that occured hear. Serial killers are few and far between, whereas random acts of drug/gang related violence occrus in the streets of most sizeable cities every day.
I pointed out how stats can be misleading, and that is what the thread is about. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else, because that was not my intention.
Was not trying to argue, I was simply pointing out a case that occured hear. Serial killers are few and far between, whereas random acts of drug/gang related violence occrus in the streets of most sizeable cities every day.
I pointed out how stats can be misleading, and that is what the thread is about. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else, because that was not my intention.
I wouldn't call drug and gang violence random to be honest when it occurs between said people. When living that life, that come with the territory and such persons shouldn't be surprised.
I agree that crime rates are better looked at on the metro level. Here are the Bay Area's murder numbers, for all component MSA's and the whole CSA, as of 2007:
I say if the busy downtown is dangerous, than the city is dangerous.. If the neighborhood outside of it's busy downtown is dangerous while the inner downtown is relatively safe that means that particular area is dangerous.
They should start giving stats on cities neighborhoods when they give out it's OVERALL city crime stats.
I agree stats on neighborhoods would be good....but what you said about the downtown being "dangerous" meaning the entire city is dangerous doesn't really hold true. Downtown Detroit is actually very safe, but the city as a whole is not. Then take San Francisco for example, which has a pretty sketchy downtown in parts. The tenderloin district makes up a good chunk of downtown SF, and had a murder rate of 60/100k in 2007, and 45/100k in 2008....yet SF as a whole is not "dangerous", even though a good chunk of it's core is (the tenderloin, civic center, parts of SOMA, the western addition, mission district).
Was not trying to argue, I was simply pointing out a case that occured hear. Serial killers are few and far between, whereas random acts of drug/gang related violence occrus in the streets of most sizeable cities every day.
I pointed out how stats can be misleading, and that is what the thread is about. I'm sorry if I offended you or anyone else, because that was not my intention.
interesting idea, but crime is not solely a function of population. that would mean the crime level per 1000 would be the same and only the size of the city would change, not so.
as a whole crime stats are "adjusted" to look good by the police and city of origin.
here crime is 3 times what is stated. big duke out with the editor of a local TV station and the current mayor a few years back on this very subject.
I agree that crime rates are better looked at on the metro level. Here are the Bay Area's murder numbers, for all component MSA's and the whole CSA, as of 2007:
I agree stats on neighborhoods would be good....but what you said about the downtown being "dangerous" meaning the entire city is dangerous doesn't really hold true. Downtown Detroit is actually very safe, but the city as a whole is not. Then take San Francisco for example, which has a pretty sketchy downtown in parts. The tenderloin district makes up a good chunk of downtown SF, and had a murder rate of 60/100k in 2007, and 45/100k in 2008....yet SF as a whole is not "dangerous", even though a good chunk of it's core is (the tenderloin, civic center, parts of SOMA, the western addition, mission district).
Los Angeles (County) had 1,012 homicides (2006) , 1,068 (2005) , 1,038 (2004), 1,053 (2003) , 1,162 (2002) , 1,070 (2001) , 1,000 (2000)
Los Angeles County Alone has more murders than anywhere else in America (besides Texas & Florida) & Almost as many as Texas & Florida
but that does not mean Los Angeles County can't be safe or dangerous depending on area
Last edited by 9TheCityOfAngeles9; 05-14-2009 at 07:50 PM..
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.
Interesting.........
