And NYC is now famous for prosecuting you for engaging in self defense as well.
https://nypost.com/2022/07/10/nyc-bodega-owners-urge-da-brag...
https://nypost.com/2023/04/01/nyc-garage-worker-charged-with...
In the second story, who knows what in the hell is even going on. It happened too recently for there to be any clarity on what actually happened there. That could easily have been an over-zealous person causing problems (like George Zimmerman) rather than self-defense. Time and the trial will tell.
All of this is alleged, and based only on testimony of the person who did the shooting. We simply don't actually know what happened here yet (if we ever will). You're making assumptions based on the New York Post's reporting, which is a tabloid at best. It's entirely possible that the person who did the shooting was the one who had the gun all along.
Nobody looks into random cars in a lot without intent to steal and he was the only one to introduce a gun into the affair.
They never should have been filed. The victim was cuffed to his hospital bed recovering from two gunshot wounds.
That’s ridiculous and horrific.
If you’ve ever been falsely arrested, you’d realize that the process alone is punishment, and should never be applied without significant care.
How do you know this? Why aren't other cities affected by this under reporting?
So, to more directly answer your second question: other cities absolutely also suffer here, but New York has been at it the longest, and so is perhaps best known for this issue.
For more background, Reply All did a two-parter a few years ago exploring the history here, which is quite good. This is the first part: https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/o2hx34
I was asking for evidence that was the case for nyc and that it was such an extent as to change the danger of the city compared to others
The primary difference I notice is that in SF, people seem to expect that the police will care about this? I am not sure why the expectations seem so different - perhaps it is the large number of people coming from more suburban parts of the country where the police do investigate these crimes?
And maybe, probably because they should be investigating these crimes.
If you want to see stats for all cities, view the FBI UCR directly [https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...].
e.g. NJ cities incl. Camden are at https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
2019 snapshot has 2018 data: https://web.archive.org/web/20190508183318/https://ucr.fbi.g...
But there's no data after 2019 in any of the snapshots, up to 2023. I wonder what happened in 2020 that makes it impossible to collect any data since then...
I'm not sure I follow. Are you saying that victims of violent crime are less likely to report it post-BLM/George Floyd? I know some people have been less likely to call certain things in, like someone having a mental health crisis, out of fear that police may escalate, but violent crime?
The same is observed pretty much everywhere where "defund the police" crowd rules the day.
In short, someone will attack a progressive spectre, such as BLM, police abolitionism, rehabilitative justice, or the fact that economic inequality is strongly correlated with crime, they will be asked to show data supporting their position or shown data that directly contradicts it, and the op will then respond in anger with a lot more strawmans of progressive positions.
Given that you don't have the data to support your position, and others do have data to support the position you clearly and vehemently oppose, I'm really curious why you still hold that position? Like, what are you feeling right now?
I did.
> shown data that directly contradicts it
It wasn't.
> will then respond in anger with a lot more strawmans of progressive positions.
That didn't happen. Defunding the police is exactly the position of the prog-woke crowd, and until the disastrous results started showing up, they didn't hide it - they campaigned on it. Once the inevitable happened, they started screaming "we didn't mean that" and pretending it's all strawmen. Yes you did. You meant exactly that, and you got what you wanted, and now people who trusted you are suffering the consequences. Some - the lethal ones.
> Given that you don't have the data to support your position
Except I do.
> others do have data to support the position you clearly and vehemently oppose
Except they don't.
> I'm really curious why you still hold that position?
Because I not only dislike myself being stabbed, but also others being stabbed? And when these policies are followed, people get stabbed. Also shot, mugged, robbed, carjacked, and so on. If you think ideology is worth it - enjoy it. I do not.
> what are you feeling right now?
I am feeling sad that more people have to suffer in service of idiotic ideology that clearly does not work, and I am feeling glad I am no longer one of these people.
Results have been disastrous in the usa because economic inequality has been skyrocketing. This is what the "prog woke" crowd has been warning about, and, as the data shows, very little if any of the "prog woke" policies have been enacted, even in "prog woke" hub San Francisco.
It's getting worse because the predictable reactionary cycle and ratcheting continues. A region virtue signals progressive positions, maybe even does a half measure (like eliminating cash bail, a blatantly classist policy), then ratchets back into reactionary land by cherry picking events, even if overall data shows improvements as expected. Or, like in the case of SF, contrarian forces will mean you can have a situation like "socialist DA elected," then the cops will simply stop doing their jobs, so whether the new da tries progressive policy or not is moot - enforcement will plummet.
Reactionary systems are remarkably powerful in the USA and that's why things will probably keep getting worse there.
Not sure how much of these cuts were achieved by the time they reversed the course, in 18 months, but that certainly was the plan, it was announced as such, and had full support of the police chief. Not that by 2020 SF wasn't drowning in feces anyway, so the defund itself certainly wasn't the cause - just another brick in the wall.
> Dealing the final blow to the local "defund" movement last year was a city council vote to essentially refund a cut they'd made the prior year. Mayor Jacob Frey is proposing another budget bump for the next two fiscal years.
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/how-city-once-called-...
As far as I'm aware, every single city that defunded its police to any extent - ended up with a major crime surge and then reversed itself. You can see in the article that Minneapolis was no exception to that rule.
Just go home.
But they won’t do it. Hell, if they did all the above I wouldn’t mind paying them double.
Agreed. They won't though. Sigh.
Hearsay.
> E.g. constant car break-ins is useless to report
Not if you want to file an insurance claim, no. Or for example if you oppose car break-ins, then you might want the statistics to be correct.
What the majority of people are concerned about is the chances of violent crime that is likely to affect them. Yes, there might be 80 gang murders a year in Atlanta but a $100k+ income working professional in downtown has a very different threat model than a gang member in some of the worst neighborhoods of the city.
I think the reason SF gets so much negative attention is because the threat to "average people" (realistically, above average income people) is anecdotally quite high in SF, even in "nice" areas of the city where affluent people frequent.
But is it actually quite high?
Anecdotally, I notice many more people going through psychotic episodes here, but generally less organized violent crime. The drug dealing/prostitution is mostly restricted to a few parts of the Mission and the TL.
I don't know, I also care about violent crime that happens to anyone. I care about all life, not just my own.
Both Manhattan and SF are now more dangerous than downtown NOLA imo, but NYC is tame compared to SF. SF is getting next level - almost comparable to Johannesburg ZA
LA is of course the home to the most infamous hoods of all but traffic is a much bigger practical concern since you won't be on foot. Seattle was never as desirable for techies as Bellevue - Amazon went to Seattle for cheap office space. Portland gets a bad rap because of Antifa but East Portland was always bad news
The only somewhat normal (and somewhat sleepy) city on the US west coast imo is San Diego
But imo by far the best city on the west coast overall is Vancouver Canada
Property crime is what substantially contributes to the image that SF is an unsafe city.
---
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
Which makes SF far more dangerous to law abiding professionals like ourselves, compared to cities that have the same homicide count, but where the victims are other demographics and not our own.
If San Francisco has national average drug crime as well as above national average rates of "professionals" as well as organized crime, then it seems to follow that if SF homicide count is close to the national average, you are actually less likely to be a victim of a homicide than if all of those homicides were among a small population of "professionals."
You keep trying to counter that with wild speculation that contradicts well-established facts. It simply won't do.
Or maybe show me how the fact that Bob Lee was murdered proves that SF is more dangerous to law-abiding civilians than other cities?
By that list, sorted by the total violent crime rate from highest to lowest, SF is 37th on the list of 100 cities, NYC is 59th, Austin is 73rd. In absolute numbers, SF is 715/100k, NYC is 539/100k, Austin is 415/100k.
Also, by that list, the top cities for violent crime with population over 1M are: Chicago #17, Houston #18, Philly #25, Tuscon #29, Dallas #31, LA #32, Phoenix #33.
Now if only we could get a graph of this data mapped over time, it would be interesting to see trends.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...