Oakland: #4 most dangerous city in America (condo, stats, safe)

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by Deconstrukt

No one makes this comparisons but you.

Anyone makes any negative comment about Oakland and you and your bros come out of the woodwork.

I have nothing against oakland, but these forum wars are pathetic.

I have Nineties Flava on ignore, but I notice that anyone who is part of the "Oakland Boosters" club thinks that S.F doesn't get a bad rap, and none of the crime is ever reported. I hear about tons of SF Crime on KTVU, and read about it on SF Gate. Locally, SF Crime not being reported is simply false. I don't know about the news in Boise, Idaho, and if S.F crime gets reported there, but for the Bay Area, it most definitely does.

Also, the idea that the violent crime in Oakland "only" happens to gang members is ludicrous and dangerous. Just this year a 5 year old kid was shot by an errant bullet whizzing into his chest while he was helping his parents at their taco truck on International Boulevard. Was he the target of a gang killing? No, he was just in the wrong place, at the wrong time, in Oakland.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BARQ1MJFP2.DTL

Also I agree about the Oakland boosters club, if what the article is saying wasn't true, I highly doubt the response would be this concentrated and venomous. But the simple fact is that Oakland is the #4 most violent city in the country for a reason, it isn't fantasy.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

I have Nineties Flava on ignore, but I notice that anyone who is part of the "Oakland Boosters" club thinks that S.F doesn't get a bad rap, and none of the crime is ever reported. I hear about tons of SF Crime on KTVU, and read about it on SF Gate. Locally, SF Crime not being reported is simply false. I don't know about the news in Boise, Idaho, and if S.F crime gets reported there, but for the Bay Area, it most definitely does.

Also I agree about the Oakland boosters club, if what the article is saying wasn't true, I highly doubt the response would be this concentrated and venomous. But the simple fact is that Oakland is the #4 most violent city in the country for a reason, it isn't fantasy.

SF crime isn't reported at the same level of Oakland crime by any stretch by the local media. I regularly hear about non-fatal shootings in Oakland and ATM robberies, etc. The same crimes are rarely covered by the mainstream Bay Area media if they occur in SF.

And one not so minor detail, when any crime happens in Oakland, it is called as Oakland, and rarely a specific area. In SF, the crime is called by the neighborhood, with no mention of it being in SF.

For example, a shooting in Potrero Hill in SF will be titled. "Shooting in Potrero, injures 2." If you didn't know Potrero was a neighborhood in SF, you'd wouldn't know where it was. If there was a shooting in Oakland, it will be titled "Shooting in Oakland, injures 2" and you'd need to read a few paragraphs in to find out where.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by Deconstrukt

No one makes this comparisons but you.

Lol.

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

San Francisco to me feels safe, but it's dirty and grungy. I could see how others would see it as unsafe, especially with such a large homeless population.

In comparison, Oakland has areas that don't look as dirty (more desolate), but are way more dangerous IMHO.

I've never felt like I would be killed or shot in S.F, but I have had that feeling in Oakland.

//www.city-data.com/forum/24710869-post42.html


There are a lot of other posters on this board who share the exact same belief, and generally one gathers that they have neither spent much time (or any at all) in Oakland and/or zero time in the worst parts of SF.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jade408

SF crime isn't reported at the same level of Oakland crime by any stretch by the local media. I regularly hear about non-fatal shootings in Oakland and ATM robberies, etc. The same crimes are rarely covered by the mainstream Bay Area media if they occur in SF.

And one not so minor detail, when any crime happens in Oakland, it is called as Oakland, and rarely a specific area. In SF, the crime is called by the neighborhood, with no mention of it being in SF.

For example, a shooting in Potrero Hill in SF will be titled. "Shooting in Potrero, injures 2." If you didn't know Potrero was a neighborhood in SF, you'd wouldn't know where it was. If there was a shooting in Oakland, it will be titled "Shooting in Oakland, injures 2" and you'd need to read a few paragraphs in to find out where.

That's ridiculous. Who lives in the Bay Area and doesn't know Potrero Hil is in San Francisco?

I see crime reported as "Shooting in Fruitvale" or "Hit and run in Oaksterdam" on the Oakland Tribune all the time. Does that mean that the "local media" is trying to under report crime for Oakland?

You have no way of proving this conspiracy theory that the local media under reports crime for S.F because it's a tin foil hat theory with no credible proof to substantiate it, and it's simply false.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

That's ridiculous. Who lives in the Bay Area and doesn't know Potrero Hil is in San Francisco?

I see crime reported as "Shooting in Fruitvale" or "Hit and run in Oaksterdam" on the Oakland Tribune all the time. Does that mean that the "local media" is trying to under report crime for Oakland?

You have no way of proving this conspiracy theory that the local media under reports crime for S.F because it's a tin foil hat theory with no credible proof to substantiate it, and it's simply false.

Seriously, you're doing the equivalent of this right now:



http://www.ostrichheadinsand.com/ima...ad_in_sand.jpg

Let's look at homocide headlines from the SF Chronicle on both cities why don't we...

Oakland

"15-year-old held in Oakland double-homocide"

"Oakland shooting leaves 1 dead, 3 wounded"

Oakland death was likely a killing"

San Francisco

"SF Man arrested in 5 killings in Ingleside home"

"SF Bayview shooting kills teen"

"Man, 30, shot to death in SF's Bayview District"


Deny it all you want, but it's very obvious to anyone who pays attention that the SF media attempts to make it seem as if the only place where murders ever happen in SF is Bayview and the Tenderloin, which obviously has an effect on the O/A perception of SF. The only time the SF media doesn't write the neighborhood in the headline is when it happens somewhere where murders aren't supposed to happen, i.e. in places where tourism would decline if people began to think that said locales were dangerous. Oakland doesn't get that luxury... in fact, they're more likely to write the neighborhood if it happens in a wealthier area of Oakland where murders don't typically happen.

[Oaklands]

^^^ Why are you wasting your time trying to reason with or break down things with Mr. Fantastic? A. He has you on ignore. B. Facts don't' matter to trolls.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by Oaklands

^^^ Why are you wasting your time trying to reason with or break down things with Mr. Fantastic? A. He has you on ignore. B. Facts don't' matter to trolls.

I'm not replying for his sake so much as for others who might stumble across this thread and actually think he's genuine.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

That's ridiculous. Who lives in the Bay Area and doesn't know Potrero Hil is in San Francisco?

I see crime reported as "Shooting in Fruitvale" or "Hit and run in Oaksterdam" on the Oakland Tribune all the time. Does that mean that the "local media" is trying to under report crime for Oakland?

You have no way of proving this conspiracy theory that the local media under reports crime for S.F because it's a tin foil hat theory with no credible proof to substantiate it, and it's simply false.

The Tribue is not the most widely read paper in the region.

Let's look at the Chronicle (Thanks Ninties Flava)

Let's look at homocide headlines from the SF Chronicle on both cities why don't we...

Oakland

"15-year-old held in Oakland double-homocide"

"Oakland shooting leaves 1 dead, 3 wounded"

Oakland death was likely a killing"

San Francisco

"SF Man arrested in 5 killings in Ingleside home"

"SF Bayview shooting kills teen"

"Man, 30, shot to death in SF's Bayview District"


Deny it all you want, but it's very obvious to anyone who pays attention that the SF media attempts to make it seem as if the only place where murders ever happen in SF is Bayview and the Tenderloin, which obviously has an effect on the O/A perception of SF. The only time the SF media doesn't write the neighborhood in the headline is when it happens somewhere where murders aren't supposed to happen, i.e. in places where tourism would decline if people began to think that said locales were dangerous. Oakland doesn't get that luxury... in fact, they're more likely to write the neighborhood if it happens in a wealthier area of Oakland where murders don't typically happen.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by jade408

Oakland doesn't get that luxury... in fact, they're more likely to write the neighborhood if it happens in a wealthier area of Oakland where murders don't typically happen.

The first article posted was a murder near LAKE MERRITT. Last time I checked that's supposed to be a better area of Oakland, yet it's hidden from the byline and title. Isn't that the opposite of what Ninties Flava was claiming?

jade408 and Nineties Flava's theory = Destroyed by their own article and lack of fact checking.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

The first article posted was a murder near LAKE MERRITT. Last time I checked that's supposed to be a better area of Oakland, yet it's hidden from the byline and title. Isn't that the opposite of what Ninties Flava was claiming?

jade408 and Nineties Flava's theory = Destroyed by their own article and lack of fact checking.

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/b...sne/straws.jpg

^Describes you real well. The double homicide happened on the Merritt/Cleveland Heights border which is not considered a nice area at all. Cleveland Heights is considered nice but Merritt is not.