Homicides are up quite a bit at this point compared to last year though.
Two more today, per the PD.
- 1,644
One on the beautiful 2300 block of Russell right next to the brand new Early Childhood center. Let's hope it wasn't random.ttricamo wrote:Two more today, per the PD.
http://www.kmov.com/news/One-found-dead--282296661.html
These numbers are meaningless right now and most likely incredibly wrong in reality. Remember, I posted a few days ago about my luck? Well, it ran out a little last weekend. A visitor had his car broken into and items stolen and I thwarted a mugger after a foolish walk somewhere alone late Saturday. He jumped out of the darkness at me and was walking fast towards me muttering and looking mean, I got buck, crossed over the street (big tip right there for you) and he turned around and scurried back into the bushes.True_dope wrote:http://www.slmpd.org/crimestats/CRM0013-BY_201410.pd
last months crime numbers are out crime downtown is down by 3% and downtown west is down by 7%
and over all city crime is down by 8%
Trust me, I know this stuff when I see it. I got lucky again.
- 2,093
^Stabbings are rarely random, especially within a home.
- 8,155
We may be on track to be the homicide leader for 2014... FBI just released 2013 figures and we were 4th behind Detroit (1), New Orleans (2) and Newark (3). With our steep increase and Detroit's YTD drop, we likely will surpass the Motor City so unless New Orleans and Newark also see increased homicides we may be getting some very unfortunate publicity this time next year.ttricamo wrote:Two more today, per the PD.
It's useless to complain about gun related murders. There is almost nothing we can do to stop them.
- 284
Heres the top 5 most dangerous cities
5. Cleveland
Violent crime per 100,000:1,478
Population 389,181
2013 murders 55
Poverty rate 36.9%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma78.2%
4. St.Louis
Violent crime per 100,000:1,594
Population 318,563
2013 murders 120
Poverty rate 26.6%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma 83.3%
3. Memphis
Violent crime per 100,000:1,656
Population 657,691
2013 Murders 124
Poverty rate 27.7%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma 82.5%
2. Oakland Cal.
Violent crime per 100,000: 1,977
Population 403,887
2013 murders 90
Poverty rate 19.5%
Percentage of adults with a high school Diploma 80.9%
1. Detrot
Violent crime per 100,000: 2,072
Population 699,889
2013 murders 316
Poverty rate 40.7%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma 78.6%
St.Louis has a good chance of hitting 150 this year
5. Cleveland
Violent crime per 100,000:1,478
Population 389,181
2013 murders 55
Poverty rate 36.9%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma78.2%
4. St.Louis
Violent crime per 100,000:1,594
Population 318,563
2013 murders 120
Poverty rate 26.6%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma 83.3%
3. Memphis
Violent crime per 100,000:1,656
Population 657,691
2013 Murders 124
Poverty rate 27.7%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma 82.5%
2. Oakland Cal.
Violent crime per 100,000: 1,977
Population 403,887
2013 murders 90
Poverty rate 19.5%
Percentage of adults with a high school Diploma 80.9%
1. Detrot
Violent crime per 100,000: 2,072
Population 699,889
2013 murders 316
Poverty rate 40.7%
Percentage of adults with a high school diploma 78.6%
St.Louis has a good chance of hitting 150 this year
- 5,433
We also have a good shot of landing back at #1 or at least #2 on this list next year. I'm not saying I agree with the methodology by any means, I'm just predicting a worse ranking next year based on current upward trends in violent crime.
It's hard to believe that Memphis ranks third. They were as many murders, but in a city with 2x the population of St. Louis. There are also large swaths of suburban areas within the City of Memphis that are quite safe, especially east of I-240 between Bartlett and Germantown. Actually, there are plenty of nice, safe neighborhoods inside I-240 between downtown and those suburbs as well.
If there's any good news at all, based on that population estimate, St. Louis' population seems to be stabilizing(?) after a 60-year freefall. I realize this isn't the best place to discuss that, I just thought at least there was one positive in almost 300 pages of crime-related posts.
It's hard to believe that Memphis ranks third. They were as many murders, but in a city with 2x the population of St. Louis. There are also large swaths of suburban areas within the City of Memphis that are quite safe, especially east of I-240 between Bartlett and Germantown. Actually, there are plenty of nice, safe neighborhoods inside I-240 between downtown and those suburbs as well.
If there's any good news at all, based on that population estimate, St. Louis' population seems to be stabilizing(?) after a 60-year freefall. I realize this isn't the best place to discuss that, I just thought at least there was one positive in almost 300 pages of crime-related posts.
- 8,155
^ I see this thread began in 2007; over that time there has been a significant drop in overall crime... it is frustrating to see that the reduction in homicides that occurred in recent years has been eroded during the past 18 months and is now trending towards 2007-2009 numbers, but on the whole the good news of reduced crime should be acknowledged.
- 284
I think over in time crime will start to significantly go down as many neighborhoods begin to gentrify and repopulate. This year is a definite eye open for many reasons.
- 8,155
^ well, again, except for the recent rise in homicides crime already has significantly decreased in recent years.
Have to take the good with the bad.roger wyoming II wrote:^ well, again, except for the recent rise in homicides crime already has significantly decreased in recent years.
- 5,433
I agree, an overall reduction is certainly good news. What concerns me, however, cannot be measured with statistics. I, like others here, am really bothered by the brazenness with which criminals have acted recently. The rolling gun battles and muggings in downtown, the 'knockout game', and the recent armed robberies across south St. Louis are all quite troubling in my opinion. Add to that the increase in homicides and the uncertainty over what may happen when the grand jury returns its decision in the Michael Brown case, and a lot of people have a very uneasy feeling right now that cannot be satiated even when they're presented with the fact that overall crime has decreased in the last several years. This is one of those areas in which I think the mayor and police chief could and should do a better job of communicating about crime with the public.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I see this thread began in 2007; over that time there has been a significant drop in overall crime... it is frustrating to see that the reduction in homicides that occurred in recent years has been eroded during the past 18 months and is now trending towards 2007-2009 numbers, but on the whole the good news of reduced crime should be acknowledged.
- 3,235
Are homicides up and total crime down? Yes. However it's much hard to reclassify a homicide like it is other crimes. In other words, all crime stats are easy to fudge except for homicides.
- 5,433
^ Good point. Again, this is where better communication and more transparency would be helpful in my opinion.
- 8,155
I don't buy into reclassification conspiracies.... could happen on occasion but not enough to make any significant difference on reported crimes. Virtually all crimes dropped significantly in recent years, including homicides, and the only thing that has been quirky is that homicides began to increase last summer while other crimes continued to drop. Other crimes have increased in the past two months or so and that will be something to keep an eye on, but I think it is pretty clear that we're significantly below the crime levels of 5-6 years ago.
- 271
Could you unpack this post a little bit?threeonefour wrote:I agree, an overall reduction is certainly good news. What concerns me, however, cannot be measured with statistics. I, like others here, am really bothered by the brazenness with which criminals have acted recently. The rolling gun battles and muggings in downtown, the 'knockout game', and the recent armed robberies across south St. Louis are all quite troubling in my opinion. Add to that the increase in homicides and the uncertainty over what may happen when the grand jury returns its decision in the Michael Brown case, and a lot of people have a very uneasy feeling right now that cannot be satiated even when they're presented with the fact that overall crime has decreased in the last several years. This is one of those areas in which I think the mayor and police chief could and should do a better job of communicating about crime with the public.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I see this thread began in 2007; over that time there has been a significant drop in overall crime... it is frustrating to see that the reduction in homicides that occurred in recent years has been eroded during the past 18 months and is now trending towards 2007-2009 numbers, but on the whole the good news of reduced crime should be acknowledged.
You're concerned with the "brazenness with which criminals have acted recently," but then you rattle off a bunch of stuff that's been happening frequently in St. Louis for decades (except for the knockout gang thing, which is more just the past several years). Then you combine that somehow with the slight uptick in homicides this year and the fact that some people are afraid of "uncertainty" over the reaction to the Michael Brown grand jury, and you conclude "this is one of the areas in which the mayor and police chief could and should do a better job of communicating about crime with the public"? What?
- 284
Theres was a shooting near KC's city hall . I feel relieved that this isn't just a St.Louis phenomenon :jokingly lol:
In reality goes to show that we aren't alone and any city or town is just as dangerous so when it comes to these most dangerous city stats i won't by into it...No matter where you go theres come to be something bad happening as True_dope stated you take the good with the bad ..
In reality goes to show that we aren't alone and any city or town is just as dangerous so when it comes to these most dangerous city stats i won't by into it...No matter where you go theres come to be something bad happening as True_dope stated you take the good with the bad ..
WRT homicides, here is how that conversation needs to be framed:
1) We know that in the high poverty, all black parts of STL city, homicides have occured and continue to occur at a very high rate. Or maybe it is more accurate to say are overwhelmingly committed by poor black men from certain neighborhoods. It would be just as interesting to see a map of where perps live as well as where they have committed crimes.
2) What specific factors or variables affecting the relevant demographic segments contained within that grouping could be or are contributing to an increase in homicides? There is suspicion on this thread that it is a result of Ferguson. Have there been any other disruptive events that would disproportionately have affected these groups?
a) Is the increase in homicide isolated to already established victim demographic groups, or is it spilling over into nontraditional demographic segments, and if so at what rate? In other words, are homicides against non poor+black+gang=affiliated victims increasing, and is a white, or non-poor-black person in STL still about twice as likely to die in a car accident as be murdered, as has been the case.
b) If so, why?
If the answer to 2a is that these crimes continue to be socially isolated, then as far as gentrification goes, the message to would-be gentrifiers ought to be "keep coming, nothing has changed in spite of statistics."
That obviously doesn't solve the problem of the increase, but doing that deeper dive analysis would help to clearly identify what the problems are and are not.
1) We know that in the high poverty, all black parts of STL city, homicides have occured and continue to occur at a very high rate. Or maybe it is more accurate to say are overwhelmingly committed by poor black men from certain neighborhoods. It would be just as interesting to see a map of where perps live as well as where they have committed crimes.
2) What specific factors or variables affecting the relevant demographic segments contained within that grouping could be or are contributing to an increase in homicides? There is suspicion on this thread that it is a result of Ferguson. Have there been any other disruptive events that would disproportionately have affected these groups?
a) Is the increase in homicide isolated to already established victim demographic groups, or is it spilling over into nontraditional demographic segments, and if so at what rate? In other words, are homicides against non poor+black+gang=affiliated victims increasing, and is a white, or non-poor-black person in STL still about twice as likely to die in a car accident as be murdered, as has been the case.
b) If so, why?
If the answer to 2a is that these crimes continue to be socially isolated, then as far as gentrification goes, the message to would-be gentrifiers ought to be "keep coming, nothing has changed in spite of statistics."
That obviously doesn't solve the problem of the increase, but doing that deeper dive analysis would help to clearly identify what the problems are and are not.
What? That's not true at all. Of course there's crime and murder and rape and whatever in every city but to say all cities are "just as dangerous" as any other is absolutely absurd. I'm a big believer in the manipulation of crime stats (I don't even think it has to be believed... it's just a fact of police depts/city govts), but there's only so far you can push that. "Most dangerous city" rankings are usually pretty accurate.TheNewSaintLouis wrote: In reality goes to show that we aren't alone and any city or town is just as dangerous so when it comes to these most dangerous city stats i won't by into it...No matter where you go theres come to be something bad happening as True_dope stated you take the good with the bad ..
^ I really like the idea laid out above. I feel like crime/homicide trends aren't analyzed nearly as well as they could be, except maybe by the police, but for obvious reasons they might not want to share all of their information. The rest of us just see a homicide and add it to the tally, as if they're all the same. The reality is far more complex, and deeper analysis might aid in understanding fluctuations in homicide.
- 8,155
^ I think you give police far too much credit in understanding what the heck goes on with homicide. 
Why is it down 30% in KC this year and up 30% in Saint Louis? Try figuring that one out! BTW, we also have to diminish the impact of Ferguson events. We had more homicides last December than we did this September and just one less than October. The homicide uptick began all the way back in Summer of '13... if we can gain an understanding for why this occurred great, but good luck! Hopefully it is largely due to working out turf issues or similar and will cycle out soon, but who knows.
Why is it down 30% in KC this year and up 30% in Saint Louis? Try figuring that one out! BTW, we also have to diminish the impact of Ferguson events. We had more homicides last December than we did this September and just one less than October. The homicide uptick began all the way back in Summer of '13... if we can gain an understanding for why this occurred great, but good luck! Hopefully it is largely due to working out turf issues or similar and will cycle out soon, but who knows.
Two more homicides yesterday in separate North City incidents.... Post-Dispatch headline was "2 Men Found Dead" but I believe another outlet reported one victim was 18 and the other 16. Very sad.
- 5,433
I'm talking about perception. Here's some reality instead: With yesterday's homicides, the 2013 total was surpassed.Greatest St. Louis wrote:Could you unpack this post a little bit?
You're concerned with the "brazenness with which criminals have acted recently," but then you rattle off a bunch of stuff that's been happening frequently in St. Louis for decades (except for the knockout gang thing, which is more just the past several years). Then you combine that somehow with the slight uptick in homicides this year and the fact that some people are afraid of "uncertainty" over the reaction to the Michael Brown grand jury, and you conclude "this is one of the areas in which the mayor and police chief could and should do a better job of communicating about crime with the public"? What?
Also, I think onecity, wustl, and RWII have articulated the need for further analysis quite well.
- 3,434
What is your basis for saying the most dangerous cities rankings are pretty accurate? Would you also say the most dangerous metro area rankings are also pretty accurate?wustl_eng wrote:What? That's not true at all. Of course there's crime and murder and rape and whatever in every city but to say all cities are "just as dangerous" as any other is absolutely absurd. I'm a big believer in the manipulation of crime stats (I don't even think it has to be believed... it's just a fact of police depts/city govts), but there's only so far you can push that. "Most dangerous city" rankings are usually pretty accurate.TheNewSaintLouis wrote: In reality goes to show that we aren't alone and any city or town is just as dangerous so when it comes to these most dangerous city stats i won't by into it...No matter where you go theres come to be something bad happening as True_dope stated you take the good with the bad ..
^ I really like the idea laid out above. I feel like crime/homicide trends aren't analyzed nearly as well as they could be, except maybe by the police, but for obvious reasons they might not want to share all of their information. The rest of us just see a homicide and add it to the tally, as if they're all the same. The reality is far more complex, and deeper analysis might aid in understanding fluctuations in homicide.
http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2013/20 ... igh%29.pdf
Why are they so different for a place like St. Louis? Or, say, San Antonio -- but the other way around. (If you go to the city of San Antonio, you are not in any danger. But if you go to the San Antonio Metro area, look out. Your danger level shoots up!)
Could it be that the "cities" list is biased against rustbelt metro areas where the "city" happens to represent a small inner core of the surrounding metro area? It would be more accurate for statisticians to normalize out the contaminating effects of cities' wildy varying city limit extensions into surrounding low crime suburbs. But that takes work, and the statisticians get lazy when the data isn't pre-collected, pre-normalized, and handed to them on a silver platter. City limits are a complete hodgepodge which, if not normalized correctly and consistently, completely destroy any meaning behind danger rankings. But the press loves that most flawed version of the rankings the most -- probably because the biggest cities look safer, or are not included at all.
One way to do fair crime danger comparisons is to compare zip code areas, or else MSAs, where the Federal government defines the boundaries consistently for all the entities in the ranking. Local politicians then could not make you "safer" with annexation -- they would actually have to reduce crime.