You don't think those two things might be related?
> But its also true that the actual incident rate is much exaggerated by the media and perceptions of neighborhood differences are greater than reality.
"Reality" is a tricky concept here. Public (out-of-neighborhood) perception of risk will depress the incident rate by keeping victims out of the area. If you magically caused people to believe that the risk was at some level that you felt reflected the current incident rate, and the incident rate rose because people started going where they shouldn't have, whose beliefs were more accurate?
People don't really care about "how often do muggings take place in this neighborhood?". They care about "if I go in there, am I going to get mugged?".
Also, can we all agree that we'd feel a lot less safe in Wrigleyville after a Cubs game than anywhere else in the city?
Edit -> forgot LoganSq!!!
One thing that is for sure, young black teens/men have a much, much more dangerous time of it, regardless of neighborhood than anyone else, and that is tragic.
And while we are adding anecdotes to the thread, I've lived in a "bad" neighborhood on Chicago's South Side for over a decade and I've never had a single violent incident (property crime has occurred). In that same span I was attacked in Lincoln Park and Streeterville, and had an attempted bicycle incident near McCormick Place.
I routinely walk in front of crowds of young men hanging on corners (its daily for me as I pass by a couple of schools) and have never had an incident (and I in fact know many of those young men). But there are also neighborhoods less than a mile away where I would not be comfortable doing that.