ItnStln wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Not completely wrong! This perpetrator committed armed robbery, brandished a deadly weapon, and fled from a cop. Never once did I say shoplifting was a felony, so get your facts straight and stop making shit up! In most other states brandishing a deadly weapon is a felony. However, fleeing is also a felony and this perpetrator did flee from a cop.

Shoplifting is not armed robbery. Playing fast and loose with words doesn't make you right.

Waiving a knife around when confronted does make it armed robbery in several states. It is you who is not right here! In the worst case scenario the world is down one thief, and in the best case scenario, the world is down a felon! The perpetrator should have lived by the motto "be smart or be dead," and he might not have caused his own death!

We’re talking about Arizona, where it happened, not ‘several states’. You can twist and turn all you want, your take is still wrong on the known facts. The emotional invective added only makes it even less credible.

casinterest wrote:

You missed the slow sped walk/crawl across the parking lot, where the cop never shot, and never attempted to get into a better position to use his taser.

So I am going to trust the judgement of the police chief that fired the cop immediately, and the video evidence.

We are assuming he had a taser? I know that the Tucson PD has recently had many non-lethal/less than lethal options removed from use of force continuum.

From the Chief's perspective, it might be far more politically palatable to fire the officer immediately, and let it play out in court.

The video has what looks like an anchor shot, which will be the one that the officer has to answer for.

Aaron747 wrote:

We’re talking about Arizona, where it happened, not ‘several states’. You can twist and turn all you want, your take is still wrong on the known facts. The emotional invective added only makes it even less credible.

At least one fact was that after deceased took the item, loss prevention at the store asked for a receipt, and the deceased reported pulled the knife at that moment and said "this is my receipt."

Between the fleeing and eluding, and that report, for the responding officer it had accelerated past simple shoplifting.

FlapOperator wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You missed the slow sped walk/crawl across the parking lot, where the cop never shot, and never attempted to get into a better position to use his taser.

So I am going to trust the judgement of the police chief that fired the cop immediately, and the video evidence.

We are assuming he had a taser? I know that the Tucson PD has recently had many non-lethal/less than lethal options removed from use of force continuum.

From the Chief's perspective, it might be far more politically palatable to fire the officer immediately, and let it play out in court.

The video has what looks like an anchor shot, which will be the one that the officer has to answer for.

The articles pointed out that the Officer didn't think to use his Taser because he was worried about the WheelChair, so I assume he had one.

CitizenJustin wrote:

\
I subscribe to a subreddit called r/dataisbeautiful. It’s a collection of maps and general data concerning all types of topics. A recent post dealt with crime in America and many cities in the top 20 most dangerous places are solidly Republican. Compare that to NYC and Los Angeles which are now considered two of the safest big cities in the country. Overall, red states are not any safer and many are far more dangerous due to poverty, poor education and a low human development index. Wanting blue states to tear themselves apart and it actually happening are clearly not the same thing Francine and you damn well know it. It’s good to know that you wish the best for your fellow countrymen living in blue states. Don’t be such a partisan hack and stop spreading nonsense because you’re doing exactly what the politicians want. Like, hello? Why am I even having to say this?

What are these 20 "solidly Republican" cities?

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

We’re talking about Arizona, where it happened, not ‘several states’. You can twist and turn all you want, your take is still wrong on the known facts. The emotional invective added only makes it even less credible.

At least one fact was that after deceased took the item, loss prevention at the store asked for a receipt, and the deceased reported pulled the knife at that moment and said "this is my receipt."

Between the fleeing and eluding, and that report, for the responding officer it had accelerated past simple shoplifting.

Agreed, which is why I mentioned brandishing a weapon earlier.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

We’re talking about Arizona, where it happened, not ‘several states’. You can twist and turn all you want, your take is still wrong on the known facts. The emotional invective added only makes it even less credible.

At least one fact was that after deceased took the item, loss prevention at the store asked for a receipt, and the deceased reported pulled the knife at that moment and said "this is my receipt."

Between the fleeing and eluding, and that report, for the responding officer it had accelerated past simple shoplifting.

Indeed, it did accelerate well past simple shoplifting.

FlapOperator wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

\
I subscribe to a subreddit called r/dataisbeautiful. It’s a collection of maps and general data concerning all types of topics. A recent post dealt with crime in America and many cities in the top 20 most dangerous places are solidly Republican. Compare that to NYC and Los Angeles which are now considered two of the safest big cities in the country. Overall, red states are not any safer and many are far more dangerous due to poverty, poor education and a low human development index. Wanting blue states to tear themselves apart and it actually happening are clearly not the same thing Francine and you damn well know it. It’s good to know that you wish the best for your fellow countrymen living in blue states. Don’t be such a partisan hack and stop spreading nonsense because you’re doing exactly what the politicians want. Like, hello? Why am I even having to say this?

What are these 20 "solidly Republican" cities?

Probably large cities in "solidly Republican" states like Austin or Miami. Although I don't think their rates are that bad compared to DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA.

ItnStln wrote:

Probably large cities in "solidly Republican" states like Austin or Miami. Although I don't think their rates are that bad compared to DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA.

That would certainly be my initial impression. I think you left out St. Louis, which as a city is about Republican as FDR.

"Most dangerous" is also pretty meaningless, unless quantified by some metric where the data is actually collected like "murders per 100,000 of population."

For example, poor St. Louis is a consistent front runner on this metric as the city population (St. Louis City is a relatively small subset of the St. Louis Metro area) as its 200+ murders (a large proportion in close proximity to other criminal activity) divided against a smallish discreet city population means a high rate. I think if we included the entire metro catchment, the rate would plummet. It doesn't mean obviously that parts of St. Louis are more dangerous, than say the next city of 300k, just that the rate tells its specific story.

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Probably large cities in "solidly Republican" states like Austin or Miami. Although I don't think their rates are that bad compared to DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA.

That would certainly be my initial impression. I think you left out St. Louis, which as a city is about Republican as FDR.

"Most dangerous" is also pretty meaningless, unless quantified by some metric where the data is actually collected like "murders per 100,000 of population."

For example, poor St. Louis is a consistent front runner on this metric as the city population (St. Louis City is a relatively small subset of the St. Louis Metro area) as its 200+ murders (a large proportion in close proximity to other criminal activity) divided against a smallish discreet city population means a high rate. I think if we included the entire metro catchment, the rate would plummet. It doesn't mean obviously that parts of St. Louis are more dangerous, than say the next city of 300k, just that the rate tells its specific story.

Indeed, I want numbers per capita, not nonsense like "most dangerous" or "number of murders" because that misrepresents the data.

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

\
I subscribe to a subreddit called r/dataisbeautiful. It’s a collection of maps and general data concerning all types of topics. A recent post dealt with crime in America and many cities in the top 20 most dangerous places are solidly Republican. Compare that to NYC and Los Angeles which are now considered two of the safest big cities in the country. Overall, red states are not any safer and many are far more dangerous due to poverty, poor education and a low human development index. Wanting blue states to tear themselves apart and it actually happening are clearly not the same thing Francine and you damn well know it. It’s good to know that you wish the best for your fellow countrymen living in blue states. Don’t be such a partisan hack and stop spreading nonsense because you’re doing exactly what the politicians want. Like, hello? Why am I even having to say this?

What are these 20 "solidly Republican" cities?

Probably large cities in "solidly Republican" states like Austin or Miami. Although I don't think their rates are that bad compared to DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA.

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

ItnStln wrote:

Indeed, I want numbers per capita, not nonsense like "most dangerous" or "number of murders" because that misrepresents the data.

What would be fascinating to me would be compare for example the bi-party political competitiveness of a city to its crime rates. For example, St. Louis, Baltimore, D.C. and Chicago have been single party political entities for decades.

Everyone wanted to discuss "police brutality" in Minneapolis but no one wanted to mention the last Republican mayor of Minneapolis predates the first US orbital space flight. At what point is this not a policeman problem but rather a political accountability problem?

FlapOperator wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Indeed, I want numbers per capita, not nonsense like "most dangerous" or "number of murders" because that misrepresents the data.

What would be fascinating to me would be compare for example the bi-party political competitiveness of a city to its crime rates. For example, St. Louis, Baltimore, D.C. and Chicago have been single party political entities for decades.

Everyone wanted to discuss "police brutality" in Minneapolis but no one wanted to mention the last Republican mayor of Minneapolis predates the first US orbital space flight. At what point is this not a policeman problem but rather a political accountability problem?

That's actually an excellent point! I do believe politics has a lot to do with it based off of what I've seen.

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

My point was the folly of parroting TV/radio talking points about specific cities with no basis in reality.

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

What are these 20 "solidly Republican" cities?

Probably large cities in "solidly Republican" states like Austin or Miami. Although I don't think their rates are that bad compared to DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA.

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

Have you been to San Francisco or LA lately? As in the last year? Based off of your site, which is quite comical, it looks like they're using city limits and not metropolitan areas, which does skew things. After playing around on it with a few cities I know have high violent crime rates, it seems my suspicion was correct. Oakland is 26, and is part of the "San Francisco Bay Area," which is the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

My point was the folly of parroting TV/radio talking points about specific cities with no basis in reality.

Well, as I noted to the earlier poster, as we get to this metric, what would be your initial guess on the political parties in solid control of these cities? Solidly Republican?

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

My point was the folly of parroting TV/radio talking points about specific cities with no basis in reality.

Well, as I noted to the earlier poster, as we get to this metric, what would be your initial guess on the political parties in solid control of these cities? Solidly Republican?

Please excuse me while I laugh at Baltimore, MD, and Detroit, MI, as being solidly Republican!

ItnStln wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Probably large cities in "solidly Republican" states like Austin or Miami. Although I don't think their rates are that bad compared to DC, Baltimore, Chicago, San Francisco or LA.

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

Have you been to San Francisco or LA lately? As in the last year? Based off of your site, which is quite comical, it looks like they're using city limits and not metropolitan areas, which does skew things. After playing around on it with a few cities I know have high violent crime rates, it seems my suspicion was correct. Oakland is 26, and is part of the "San Francisco Bay Area," which is the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

Have you been to San Francisco or LA lately? As in the last year? Based off of your site, which is quite comical, it looks like they're using city limits and not metropolitan areas, which does skew things. After playing around on it with a few cities I know have high violent crime rates, it seems my suspicion was correct. Oakland is 26, and is part of the "San Francisco Bay Area," which is the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

What I brought up is valid, as metropolitan areas are a more accurate indication than city limits. I actually got a 100% in every statistics class I've taken, including when I was working on my DBA before I got sidetracked with my mistress.

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

Have you been to San Francisco or LA lately? As in the last year? Based off of your site, which is quite comical, it looks like they're using city limits and not metropolitan areas, which does skew things. After playing around on it with a few cities I know have high violent crime rates, it seems my suspicion was correct. Oakland is 26, and is part of the "San Francisco Bay Area," which is the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Stats 101 also teaches us that data can be manipulated to get different outcomes.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Have you been to San Francisco or LA lately? As in the last year? Based off of your site, which is quite comical, it looks like they're using city limits and not metropolitan areas, which does skew things. After playing around on it with a few cities I know have high violent crime rates, it seems my suspicion was correct. Oakland is 26, and is part of the "San Francisco Bay Area," which is the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Stats 101 also teaches us that data can be manipulated to get different outcomes.

Literally every statistics class, including for my DBA, taught this. There is a thing called "ethics in data reporting" that states all data must be reported, even if it goes against your narrative. I am paraphrasing, but that's close enough.

Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Speaking of Stats 101, we only can judge what we measure. With the desire of many jurisdictions to play with the stats, many crimes, especially in the Bay Area, are either non-reported, undercharged or dismissed. That rate is a "known unknown" but it is there.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

My point was the folly of parroting TV/radio talking points about specific cities with no basis in reality.

Well, as I noted to the earlier poster, as we get to this metric, what would be your initial guess on the political parties in solid control of these cities? Solidly Republican?

Since I worked in city government briefly right out of university, I’ll say the party is far less important than the competence and seriousness of the bureaucrats department wide. Things change with every mayor but the key bureaucrats stay 20-30 years. This is why one can observe dramatic differences in results between similar sized cities whether mayoral administrations have been D or R. Chicago has failed to curtail violent crime for nearly two decades while post-1992 Los Angeles has made serious strides in both crime reduction and community policing. Same party, totally different results.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

ItnStln wrote:

Have you been to San Francisco or LA lately? As in the last year? Based off of your site, which is quite comical, it looks like they're using city limits and not metropolitan areas, which does skew things. After playing around on it with a few cities I know have high violent crime rates, it seems my suspicion was correct. Oakland is 26, and is part of the "San Francisco Bay Area," which is the San Francisco metropolitan area.

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Stats 101 also teaches us that data can be manipulated to get different outcomes.

You mean like using a metric to make a point, but only selecting cities with high rates from a metro area to suggest crime is high there overall?

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Speaking of Stats 101, we only can judge what we measure. With the desire of many jurisdictions to play with the stats, many crimes, especially in the Bay Area, are either non-reported, undercharged or dismissed. That rate is a "known unknown" but it is there.

Correct, or the charges get dismissed in which case they are not reported to the FBI.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Speaking of Stats 101, we only can judge what we measure. With the desire of many jurisdictions to play with the stats, many crimes, especially in the Bay Area, are either non-reported, undercharged or dismissed. That rate is a "known unknown" but it is there.

Given the property values, educational attainment of voters, and local media focus on crime, I assure you it is very difficult to underreport violent crime in the Bay Area. Rich people watch crime rates like hawks.

ItnStln wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yes, that’s how the FBI does it in their databases - by city limits. You’re inventing a new rubric for analysis that doesn’t exist in law enforcement. You’re hunting for nearby places that confirm your bias because SF city doesn’t have a high enough violent crime rate I would flunk you right out of Stats 101.

San Jose has the highest population of any Bay Area city with a per capita violent crime rate of 4.53...why didn’t you include them? Fremont is next most populous after SF and Oakland, with a rate of 1.85. No mention of them, what gives?

I don’t live in the Bay Area anymore, but more than 25 relatives still do, six in SF city alone. What do you want to know?

Speaking of Stats 101, we only can judge what we measure. With the desire of many jurisdictions to play with the stats, many crimes, especially in the Bay Area, are either non-reported, undercharged or dismissed. That rate is a "known unknown" but it is there.

Correct, or the charges get dismissed in which case they are not reported to the FBI.

Yes that happens, but now you’re massively swinging the goalpost from violent crime to homeless people shoplifting at Walgreens.

Redd wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

I subscribe to a subreddit called r/dataisbeautiful. It’s a collection of maps and general data concerning all types of topics. A recent post dealt with crime in America and many cities in the top 20 most dangerous places are solidly Republican.

Yeah, but the problem with that is that it's just not true. Top 10 most dangerous cities in the USA for murder and non-negligent manslaughter: (Murders/100k)
1. St. Louis
2. Baltimore
3. Detroit
4. New Orleans
5. Baton Rouge
6. Kansas City
7. Cleveland
8. Memphis
9. Newark
10. Chicago

If you choose to look at assaults, first 10 cities are also blue

Each of those cities is blue, or Very blue, as per last election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... rime_rates

The safest cities also happen to be solidly blue lol. Cities will always have the most crime no matter where you are. More people = more crime. This is the same for any city around the world. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat. Cities are more dangerous than rural areas and it’s been that way since the beginning of time.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

How does Philly not make this list?

NIKV69 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Your list makes absolutely no sense factually - SF and LA are not even ranked in the top 100 cities for violent crime rate.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/blog/ ... gerous/amp

That is an interesting list for other reasons, just from the top ten.

1. Detroit, MI
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.5
Your chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
2. St. Louis, MO
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.2
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 51
3. Memphis, TN
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 52
4. Baltimore, MD
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 19.0
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 53
5. Monroe, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.9
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 55
6. Danville, IL
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 17.5
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 56
7. Wilmington, DE
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 62
8. Alexandria, LA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.8
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
9. Camden, NJ
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63
10. Scranton, PA
Violent Crime Rate (per 1,000 residents): 15.7
Chance of being a victim: 1 in 63

How does Philly not make this list?

Two Philly edge cities are in the top 20 - Camden and Chester.

CitizenJustin wrote:

Redd wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

I subscribe to a subreddit called r/dataisbeautiful. It’s a collection of maps and general data concerning all types of topics. A recent post dealt with crime in America and many cities in the top 20 most dangerous places are solidly Republican.

Yeah, but the problem with that is that it's just not true. Top 10 most dangerous cities in the USA for murder and non-negligent manslaughter: (Murders/100k)
1. St. Louis
2. Baltimore
3. Detroit
4. New Orleans
5. Baton Rouge
6. Kansas City
7. Cleveland
8. Memphis
9. Newark
10. Chicago

If you choose to look at assaults, first 10 cities are also blue

Each of those cities is blue, or Very blue, as per last election.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... rime_rates

The safest cities also happen to be solidly blue lol. Cities will always have the most crime no matter where you are. More people = more crime. This is the same for any city around the world. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat. Cities are more dangerous than rural areas and it’s been that way since the beginning of time.

The list the other poster provided is based on crime per capita, so more people=more crime is irrelevant.

CitizenJustin wrote:

The safest cities also happen to be solidly blue lol. Cities will always have the most crime no matter where you are. More people = more crime. This is the same for any city around the world. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat. Cities are more dangerous than rural areas and it’s been that way since the beginning of time.

That's not the case. Traditionally, cities were seen as safer (especially in the 1700-1900s.) There is lots of literature about this.

Statistically, you could probably make the case that cities are safer as proximity to medical treatment due to accident is for the majority of the population far more likely than being the victim of violent crime.

FlapOperator wrote:

CitizenJustin wrote:

The safest cities also happen to be solidly blue lol. Cities will always have the most crime no matter where you are. More people = more crime. This is the same for any city around the world. It has nothing to do with being a Democrat. Cities are more dangerous than rural areas and it’s been that way since the beginning of time.

That's not the case. Traditionally, cities were seen as safer (especially in the 1700-1900s.) There is lots of literature about this.

Statistically, you could probably make the case that cities are safer as proximity to medical treatment due to accident is for the majority of the population far more likely than being the victim of violent crime.

That’s a good point that I didn’t think of. Thanks.

CitizenJustin wrote:

That’s a good point that I didn’t think of. Thanks.

Most of the US by county lives with European crime rates. Violent crime in the US is nearly zip code level or even smaller footprint.

I did this kind of analysis for a living for the government for a period of time. I became both pretty cynical and sensitive to data crafting to supporting directed policy, even policy ideas that were "intuitively correct" or "conventional wisdom."

Oddly enough, we tried as a just for fun project to try to correlate various elements of gun ownership to violent crime rates in somewhat random data set. We came away with some weird correlations (low average first age people touched a gun had some correlation, and some commonsense but kind of "why didn't I think of that" kind of insights.

For firearms, even in jurisdictions with pretty severe gun laws but with high crime rates, we found that guns were often sourced illegally and then "flowed" through a number of hands and were involved in multiple crimes. These firearms often commanded a premium over legal but identical guns as the source was known to be trusted and the weapon untraceable to a single person. It made the policy that we arrived at that at the prosecutorial level, effort should really spend time on the illegal firearms thieves/straw men/traffickers versus the users. In this area, criminals weren't entrepreneurial; burglars did burglaries and occasionally rapes, much of the murder outside of families was drug trafficking related, car thieves stole cars, etc. (Interestingly, in a similar city in a different time zone, it was a far different solution set, as criminal gangs were far weaker, and criminals would flock to sets that were making the most money at the time.)

FlapOperator wrote:

I did this kind of analysis for a living for the government for a period of time. I became both pretty cynical and sensitive to data crafting to supporting directed policy, even policy ideas that were "intuitively correct" or "conventional wisdom."

Oddly enough, we tried as a just for fun project to try to correlate various elements of gun ownership to violent crime rates in somewhat random data set. We came away with some weird correlations (low average first age people touched a gun had some correlation, and some commonsense but kind of "why didn't I think of that" kind of insights.

For firearms, even in jurisdictions with pretty severe gun laws but with high crime rates, we found that guns were often sourced illegally and then "flowed" through a number of hands and were involved in multiple crimes. These firearms often commanded a premium over legal but identical guns as the source was known to be trusted and the weapon untraceable to a single person. It made the policy that we arrived at that at the prosecutorial level, effort should really spend time on the illegal firearms thieves/straw men/traffickers versus the users. In this area, criminals weren't entrepreneurial; burglars did burglaries and occasionally rapes, much of the murder outside of families was drug trafficking related, car thieves stole cars, etc. (Interestingly, in a similar city in a different time zone, it was a far different solution set, as criminal gangs were far weaker, and criminals would flock to sets that were making the most money at the time.)

Yep - all the detailed studies I have seen indicate drug trafficking and domestic situations are the primary drivers of homicide. As you say, the problem isn't legal gun owners in cities - it's the illegal trade that supplies them to traffickers and other gang elements. Given these challenges and the extent of their mission, this argues for dramatically better resourcing and funding for ATF/DEA...yet these are chronically underfunded agencies with lots of lingering management issues as a result.

FlapOperator wrote:

"]

Most of the US by county lives with European crime rates. Violent crime in the US is nearly zip code level or even smaller footprint.)

You're not comparing apples to apples. In Europe crime is also vastly more prevalent in certain districts. Violent crime especially so.

The US is a significantly more violent society period.

That video is almost comical, he just unloads in the guys back as he’s racing away at 2mph

JJJ wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

"]

Most of the US by county lives with European crime rates. Violent crime in the US is nearly zip code level or even smaller footprint.)

You're not comparing apples to apples. In Europe crime is also vastly more prevalent in certain districts. Violent crime especially so.

The US is a significantly more violent society period.

Except for the overall comparative prevalence of homicide this is not entirely the case. In the US violent crime is also vastly more prevalent in specific districts.

https://thecrimereport.org/2016/12/28/h ... -zip-code/

Aaron747 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

"]

Most of the US by county lives with European crime rates. Violent crime in the US is nearly zip code level or even smaller footprint.)

You're not comparing apples to apples. In Europe crime is also vastly more prevalent in certain districts. Violent crime especially so.

The US is a significantly more violent society period.

Except for the overall comparative prevalence of homicide this is not entirely the case. In the US violent crime is also vastly more prevalent in specific districts.

https://thecrimereport.org/2016/12/28/h ... -zip-code/

Precisely my point.

There are no "European" crime rates. If he wants to compare the quiet US districts they should be compared to European districts of similar socioeconomic makeup.

JJJ wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

You're not comparing apples to apples. In Europe crime is also vastly more prevalent in certain districts. Violent crime especially so.

The US is a significantly more violent society period.

Except for the overall comparative prevalence of homicide this is not entirely the case. In the US violent crime is also vastly more prevalent in specific districts.

https://thecrimereport.org/2016/12/28/h ... -zip-code/

Precisely my point.

There are no "European" crime rates. If he wants to compare the quiet US districts they should be compared to European districts of similar socioeconomic makeup.

The vast majority of US districts are ‘quiet’ in the meaning you intend.

Aaron747 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Except for the overall comparative prevalence of homicide this is not entirely the case. In the US violent crime is also vastly more prevalent in specific districts.

https://thecrimereport.org/2016/12/28/h ... -zip-code/

Precisely my point.

There are no "European" crime rates. If he wants to compare the quiet US districts they should be compared to European districts of similar socioeconomic makeup.

The vast majority of US districts are ‘quiet’ in the meaning you intend.

A perfect example is where I live. Detroit is one of the most violent American cities. Yet, I live 8 miles from the city limits in one of the safest cities around. It isn't a "rich" city, either. Just solidly middle class.

Aaron747 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

I did this kind of analysis for a living for the government for a period of time. I became both pretty cynical and sensitive to data crafting to supporting directed policy, even policy ideas that were "intuitively correct" or "conventional wisdom."

Oddly enough, we tried as a just for fun project to try to correlate various elements of gun ownership to violent crime rates in somewhat random data set. We came away with some weird correlations (low average first age people touched a gun had some correlation, and some commonsense but kind of "why didn't I think of that" kind of insights.

For firearms, even in jurisdictions with pretty severe gun laws but with high crime rates, we found that guns were often sourced illegally and then "flowed" through a number of hands and were involved in multiple crimes. These firearms often commanded a premium over legal but identical guns as the source was known to be trusted and the weapon untraceable to a single person. It made the policy that we arrived at that at the prosecutorial level, effort should really spend time on the illegal firearms thieves/straw men/traffickers versus the users. In this area, criminals weren't entrepreneurial; burglars did burglaries and occasionally rapes, much of the murder outside of families was drug trafficking related, car thieves stole cars, etc. (Interestingly, in a similar city in a different time zone, it was a far different solution set, as criminal gangs were far weaker, and criminals would flock to sets that were making the most money at the time.)

Yep - all the detailed studies I have seen indicate drug trafficking and domestic situations are the primary drivers of homicide. As you say, the problem isn't legal gun owners in cities - it's the illegal trade that supplies them to traffickers and other gang elements. Given these challenges and the extent of their mission, this argues for dramatically better resourcing and funding for ATF/DEA...yet these are chronically underfunded agencies with lots of lingering management issues as a result.

The problem isn't necessarily the resourcing of the ATF/DEA. I agree they need more, but its more on the strategic focus of said agencies. Straw purchases just aren't sexy, and dont get the headlines. The leadership of those agencies want the sexy cases. There is so much mission creep, its crazy. Its the way it is in most Federal Law Enforcement Agencies.

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Precisely my point.

There are no "European" crime rates. If he wants to compare the quiet US districts they should be compared to European districts of similar socioeconomic makeup.

The vast majority of US districts are ‘quiet’ in the meaning you intend.

A perfect example is where I live. Detroit is one of the most violent American cities. Yet, I live 8 miles from the city limits in one of the safest cities around. It isn't a "rich" city, either. Just solidly middle class.

Grosse Ile?

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

JJJ wrote:

Precisely my point.

There are no "European" crime rates. If he wants to compare the quiet US districts they should be compared to European districts of similar socioeconomic makeup.

The vast majority of US districts are ‘quiet’ in the meaning you intend.

A perfect example is where I live. Detroit is one of the most violent American cities. Yet, I live 8 miles from the city limits in one of the safest cities around. It isn't a "rich" city, either. Just solidly middle class.

Also a perfect example in the east Bay Area: Piedmont, CA is just a 10-minute drive from some of the worst neighborhoods in Oakland. Oakland's per capita violent crime rate is 12.9, and Piedmont's is 1.4. Certain districts of Oakland are over 25.0, the citywide average takes into account the hillside areas of Oakland that are not that bad.

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/piedmont/crime

https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/oakland/crime

Aaron747 wrote:

Yep - all the detailed studies I have seen indicate drug trafficking and domestic situations are the primary drivers of homicide. As you say, the problem isn't legal gun owners in cities - it's the illegal trade that supplies them to traffickers and other gang elements. Given these challenges and the extent of their mission, this argues for dramatically better resourcing and funding for ATF/DEA...yet these are chronically underfunded agencies with lots of lingering management issues as a result.

The thing with specialized agencies like ATF/DEA/HSI etc. is that ultimately, these guys and gals are all troops of the local US attorney, and the USA and their AUSAs tend to have crimes they like to build and try over time. Each agency and district has its own prosecutorial thresholds.

Thing about a federal prosecutor is that if she wants you to go to jail, you're going to jail. They have Japanese levels of success.

There have been attempts to really crack down on the illegal gun trade on the local level...Project Exile was the project I remember as being pretty successful (and was supported by both the NRA and the Brady Campaign.) Even then, some of the cops told us it wasn't that the local gun trade was reduced, just that the major players getting 5-10 years for multiple illegal gun transactions just shifted the activity to places where there wasn't as much federal heat on the players. Once the federal heat shifted to the next problem, the pond refilled itself.

FlapOperator wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Yep - all the detailed studies I have seen indicate drug trafficking and domestic situations are the primary drivers of homicide. As you say, the problem isn't legal gun owners in cities - it's the illegal trade that supplies them to traffickers and other gang elements. Given these challenges and the extent of their mission, this argues for dramatically better resourcing and funding for ATF/DEA...yet these are chronically underfunded agencies with lots of lingering management issues as a result.

The thing with specialized agencies like ATF/DEA/HSI etc. is that ultimately, these guys and gals are all troops of the local US attorney, and the USA and their AUSAs tend to have crimes they like to build and try over time. Each agency and district has its own prosecutorial thresholds.

Thing about a federal prosecutor is that if she wants you to go to jail, you're going to jail. They have Japanese levels of success.

There have been attempts to really crack down on the illegal gun trade on the local level...Project Exile was the project I remember as being pretty successful (and was supported by both the NRA and the Brady Campaign.) Even then, some of the cops told us it wasn't that the local gun trade was reduced, just that the major players getting 5-10 years for multiple illegal gun transactions just shifted the activity to places where there wasn't as much federal heat on the players. Once the federal heat shifted to the next problem, the pond refilled itself.

And Operation Fast and Furious didn't go so well either.

bpatus297 wrote:

And Operation Fast and Furious didn't go so well either.

Yeah...to say the least.

bpatus297 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

The vast majority of US districts are ‘quiet’ in the meaning you intend.

A perfect example is where I live. Detroit is one of the most violent American cities. Yet, I live 8 miles from the city limits in one of the safest cities around. It isn't a "rich" city, either. Just solidly middle class.

Grosse Ile?

Nope, much bigger and closer--Livonia.

johns624 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

A perfect example is where I live. Detroit is one of the most violent American cities. Yet, I live 8 miles from the city limits in one of the safest cities around. It isn't a "rich" city, either. Just solidly middle class.

Grosse Ile?

Nope, much bigger and closer--Livonia.

Nice area. I lived in the D for about 9 years, its a really strange place with crime where it can be rampant on one side of the street, but not the other.