Chicago

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**CptJake**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

Murder per 100k in Chicago is just that, and the population of Chicago is what you use. People from out of town getting capped (or capping someone) count against the city numbers. Just the way it works.

So Cook County doesn't count? That's 5.3 million people, almost double the 2.7 million djones520 cited.

It is almost as if you are having trouble reading the links posted and the posts themselves.

Chicago = Chicago. Outside of Chicago =/= Chicago.

Does that help?

**Dreadclaw69**

To help settle the debate on why Cook Country's population should be excluded when only the metro area is being discussed;

This year to date 488 murders had happened within the jurisdiction of the Chicago Police Department (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/chicago-hits-deadly-milestone-500th-homicide-2016-n643516). The jurisdiction of the Chicago Police Department is Chicago. Cook County falls under the jurisdiction of the Cook County Sheriff's department. So any request to include Cook County's population when calculating the murder rate of Chicago is intellectually dishonest.

**Frazzled**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

Murder per 100k in Chicago is just that, and the population of Chicago is what you use. People from out of town getting capped (or capping someone) count against the city numbers. Just the way it works.

So Cook County doesn't count? That's 5.3 million people, almost double the 2.7 million djones520 cited.

No it doesn't count, just like the LA burbs don't count (that make up 18mm people in Southern California) and areas outside Harris County don't count for Houston.

On the news this morning, ABC said the number of murders in Chicago is more than NY and LA combined. I have yet to verify.

**Ouze**

There's a pretty handy map here showing exactly where murders have been happening. The numbers given do seem to reflect Chicago itself, and not the Chicagoland area.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
On the news this morning, ABC said the number of murders in Chicago is more than NY and LA combined. I have yet to verify.

NYC is at 227 murders this year and has been continuing a long decline in shootings and other violent crime.

It's interesting that people like to say well, Chicago has tough gun laws/democratic leadership, and has high crime, therefore gun laws/democratic leadership doesn't work, but never mention NYC, which also has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, hasn't had a Republican elected governor since WW2, and has a very low murder rate per capita.

**reds8n**

How does Hawaii compare in this ?

**djones520**

reds8n wrote:
How does Hawaii compare in this ?

That has what to do with it? Hawaii and Chicago have really nothing at all in common.

**Ouze**

reds8n wrote:
How does Hawaii compare in this ?

Lower than average in violent crime, and in the bottom 9 states for murders - 26 total in 2015 for a population of 1.5 million people.

**Frazzled**

reds8n wrote:
How does Hawaii compare in this ?

This is an extremely important question. In order to make sure it is answered, Dakka should pay us to fly to Maui and investigate. I'll get the doggles for Team Wienie, and the Wife can pack my sandals and black socks. To the batcave!

**CptJake**

Ouze wrote:
reds8n wrote:
How does Hawaii compare in this ?

Lower than average in violent crime, and in the bottom 9 states for murders - 26 total in 2015 for a population of 1.5 million people.

Not a transshipment point for drugs/key node in a movement corridor either. The social and economical issues are completely different as well.

**Frazzled**

Dude...drinks with umbrellas...after four Mai Tais one can do nothing but lay comfortably by the pool/beach.

**Prestor Jon**

Ouze wrote:
There's a pretty handy map here showing exactly where murders have been happening. The numbers given do seem to reflect Chicago itself, and not the Chicagoland area.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
On the news this morning, ABC said the number of murders in Chicago is more than NY and LA combined. I have yet to verify.

NYC is at 227 murders this year and has been continuing a long decline in shootings and other violent crime.

It's interesting that people like to say well, Chicago has tough gun laws/democratic leadership, and has high crime, therefore gun laws/democratic leadership doesn't work, but never mention NYC, which also has some of the toughest gun laws in the country, hasn't had a Republican elected governor since WW2, and has a very low murder rate per capita.

NYC has had Republican mayors, Giuliani and Bloomberg for a majority of the time that has seen the massive recent decrease in crime, 1994-2013. They've done a lot to improve NYC, especially locales like TImes Square under Giuliani and have passed ordinances that have had a transformative effect on a lot of the formerly bad areas of the city. Of course, increased property values have also led to a lot of new development and changes as well which have turned over a lot of bad areas too.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rising crime isn't just a Chicago problem these days.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-right-about-violent-crime-its-on-the-rise-in-major-cities/2016/08/05/3cf6b55e-5b11-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html

And compared with 2014 lows, some types of violent crimes are not just rising; they are rising at alarming rates.

For example, since 2014, violent crime is up 47 percent in Los Angeles, 26 percent in Baltimore and 23 percent in Dallas.

In Chicago, arguably the worst-hit city, homicides have risen more than 70 percent since 2014. With almost 400 murders to date, the Windy City is on track to tally more than 650 murders this year alone — the most in almost two decades.

In New York City, homicide jumped almost 6 percent while rape is up 10 percent over the past two years.

It’s true that in some cities, such as Boston and Oakland, homicides and violent crime have continued the long-term downward trend. However, while the rise in homicide rates is not uniform, in aggregate murder is up 21 percent in the major cities we surveyed, comparing the first half of 2014 to the first half of 2016.

Even as robbery dipped slightly, aggravated assault jumped 10 percent. Total violent crime figures for the selected cities rose 6 percent, according to our analysis.

So violent crime, in most major cities at least, is on the rise.

http://www.realclearpolicy.com/blog/2015/09/14/in_search_of_a_ferguson_effect_1418.html

I came up with a simple test. The protests are heavily focused on race, so if there's a Ferguson Effect, cities with high black populations should have bigger increases in homicide — the protests presumably embolden white criminals less, and intimidate officers less when they're dealing with white suspects.

...

It's striking that, with one exception (Memphis), every single city where homicide declined had a black population under 31 percent. (Jacksonville had a tiny decrease and is 30.7 percent black.) Inversely, every single city except Memphis with a black population above that mark saw homicide increase.

Stats and methodology in the article.

More recent news:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/21/more-on-the-ferguson-effect-and-responses-to-critics/?utm_term=.0f5e2c98c581

Bottom line: Crime in cities with large black populations rose at alarming rates last year. Nashville had an 83 percent increase in homicides; Milwaukee was up 72 percent; and Cleveland, over 90 percent. Baltimore had its highest per capita homicide rate in its history. Overall, in the 56 largest cities, homicides were up 17 percent, a nearly unprecedented one-year increase.

Last year’s crime increase is continuing this year, with Chicago being perhaps the prime example of the Ferguson Effect: a 90 percent drop in pedestrian stops, and people being shot on a daily basis — more than 2,200 so far this year, nearly all black and nearly all shot by other blacks, not by police officers, who have committed 0.5 percent of all shootings.

**reds8n**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/features/magazine-37292306/37292306

relating to the murder toll, BBC has been doing some stuff.

... not sure if the news vids play overseas ..?

Apologies if not.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

It is almost as if you are having trouble reading the links posted and the posts themselves.

No, I'm making the point that people who live near Chicago frequently go to Chicago and, as such, one cannot look at the city in isolation from it's metro.

Frazzled wrote:

No it doesn't count, just like the LA burbs don't count (that make up 18mm people in Southern California) and areas outside Harris County don't count for Houston.

The population density in Cook County is twice that of Harris County and Los Angeles County and, assuming no traffic, it would take ~30 minutes to cross the whole thing.

**kronk**

Easy E wrote:
What's happening in Chicago? The same thing as during the last Prohibition?

In the past 2 years, there have been some major "decapitations" of some gangs, either jailed or killed.

So you're getting both intra-fighting to wrest control from rivals in the same gang and inter-fighting as the gangs smell weakness and fight over turf.

But it's mostly gang-on-gang bs with bystanders getting tagged in the fun and games.

**dogma**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Cook County falls under the jurisdiction of the Cook County Sheriff's department.

And the various town, village, city, and township police departments.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

So any request to include Cook County's population when calculating the murder rate of Chicago is intellectually dishonest.

No, it really isn't. The intellectual dishonesty arises when people ignore all pertinent factors.

**CptJake**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

It is almost as if you are having trouble reading the links posted and the posts themselves.

No, I'm making the point that people who live near Chicago frequently go to Chicago and, as such, one cannot look at the city in isolation from it's metro.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

No it doesn't count, just like the LA burbs don't count (that make up 18mm people in Southern California) and areas outside Harris County don't count for Houston.

The population density in Cook County is twice that of Harris County and Los Angeles County and, assuming no traffic, it would take ~30 minutes to cross the whole thing.

So by refusing to acknowledge that Chicago = Chicago and Outside Chicago =/= Chicago somehow lends validity to your point, regardless that all the stats used in the topic for Chicago apply when Chicago = Chicago?

Again, you can keep expanding the territory and population thereof if it makes you feel good, but that is not what is being discussed. You can look at the city in isolation, especially as that is where the murders are occurring. If your 'point' were to have any validity you would have to show that the greater metro area suffers similar rates. But it does not. And that is exactly why your point does not have validity, and why we are discussing Chicago.

Would a picture help?

**kronk**

If we could be done with the what's in and out of jurisdiction and/or murder rate calculation. You can calculate % murder rate per capita as part of whatever intellectual exercise you'd like on your own time, but the fact remains that there is considerable gang violence over turf in an area with a serious drug problem, completely broke and broken education system, and rampant unemployment.

What county they live in doesn't mean dick to me.

**Frazzled**

CptJake wrote:
dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

It is almost as if you are having trouble reading the links posted and the posts themselves.

No, I'm making the point that people who live near Chicago frequently go to Chicago and, as such, one cannot look at the city in isolation from it's metro.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:

No it doesn't count, just like the LA burbs don't count (that make up 18mm people in Southern California) and areas outside Harris County don't count for Houston.

The population density in Cook County is twice that of Harris County and Los Angeles County and, assuming no traffic, it would take ~30 minutes to cross the whole thing.

So by refusing to acknowledge that Chicago = Chicago and Outside Chicago =/= Chicago somehow lends validity to your point, regardless that all the stats used in the topic for Chicago apply when Chicago = Chicago?

Again, you can keep expanding the territory and population thereof if it makes you feel good, but that is not what is being discussed. You can look at the city in isolation, especially as that is where the murders are occurring. If your 'point' were to have any validity you would have to show that the greater metro area suffers similar rates. But it does not. And that is exactly why your point does not have validity, and why we are discussing Chicago.

Would a picture help?

Don't condone the trolling. Ignore the trolling.

**dogma**

CptJake wrote:

So by refusing to acknowledge that Chicago = Chicago and Outside Chicago =/= Chicago somehow lends validity to your point, regardless that all the stats used in the topic for Chicago apply when Chicago = Chicago?

Yes, and I explained exactly why it does.

CptJake wrote:

Again, you can keep expanding the territory and population thereof if it makes you feel good, but that is not what is being discussed.

Actually I've reduced the territory I would claim as relevant to Chicago, right down to Cook County.

CptJake wrote:

If your 'point' were to have any validity you would have to show that the greater metro area suffers similar rates.

No I wouldn't. My point is, quite literally, that Chicago is a crime sink for a really large metro.

**Prestor Jon**

dogma wrote:
CptJake wrote:

So by refusing to acknowledge that Chicago = Chicago and Outside Chicago =/= Chicago somehow lends validity to your point, regardless that all the stats used in the topic for Chicago apply when Chicago = Chicago?

Yes, and I explained exactly why it does.

CptJake wrote:

Again, you can keep expanding the territory and population thereof if it makes you feel good, but that is not what is being discussed.

Actually I've reduced the territory I would claim as relevant to Chicago, right down to Cook County.

CptJake wrote:

If your 'point' were to have any validity you would have to show that the greater metro area suffers similar rates.

No I wouldn't. My point is, quite literally, that Chicago is a crime sink for a really large metro.

Wouldn't the location of the majority of the murders in Chicago determine whether or not it's likely that people commuting or traveling from outside city limits (whether from Cook County or beyond) are impacting the murder numbers/rate? If the murders aren't happening in business districts than that makes the millions of people that commute into Chicago an irrelevant factor.

**Dreadclaw69**

Prestor Jon wrote:
Wouldn't the location of the majority of the murders in Chicago determine whether or not it's likely that people commuting or traveling from outside city limits (whether from Cook County or beyond) are impacting the murder numbers/rate? If the murders aren't happening in business districts than that makes the millions of people that commute into Chicago an irrelevant factor.

I think at this point this discussion of why we should include the population of Cook County in determining the rate of murders in the Chicago metro area is at best a distraction. It has already been demonstrated by multiple posters, in multiple ways, why murders that occur in the Chicago metro area are measured against the Chicago metro population. At this point I think it safe to say that we can progress the conversation away from the question as to why we don't include the population for geographic areas outside the affected area.

**dogma**

Prestor Jon wrote:

Wouldn't the location of the majority of the murders in Chicago determine whether or not it's likely that people commuting or traveling from outside city limits (whether from Cook County or beyond) are impacting the murder numbers/rate?

Sure, and the place in Chicago with the highest homicide rate borders Cicero, Berwyn, and Oak Park.

Prestor Jon wrote:

If the murders aren't happening in business districts than that makes the millions of people that commute into Chicago an irrelevant factor.

People commute to places that aren't business districts all the time.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I think at this point this discussion of why we should include the population of Cook County in determining the rate of murders in the Chicago metro area is at best a distraction.

The title of the thread is "Chicago", and my argument is that you cannot discuss Chicago without also discussing it's metro or, minimally, Cook County.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

It has already been demonstrated by multiple posters, in multiple ways, why murders that occur in the Chicago metro area are measured against the Chicago metro population.

Are, or are not? You made a positive statement twice, and referenced the Chicago metro twice, even after I reduced my claim.

**djones520**

Ok, Dogma, I've linked an academic study, conducted by Yale University, published in a per reviewed journal, whose methodology was conducted counter to your assertion.

You can keep banging your drum if you want, but I think your just distracting from the conversation at this point.

**Dreadclaw69**

Ouze mentioned earlier about the difference in crime between New York and Chicago. Does anyone know if the police have different strategies, or if there are other methods of reducing the violence between gangs?

**djones520**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze mentioned earlier about the difference in crime between New York and Chicago. Does anyone know if the police have different strategies, or if there are other methods of reducing the violence between gangs?

I think New York's (no longer active) policy of stop and frisk had a ton to do with the massive drop in their crime rate. A story I read today said that there has been an uptick this year in New York's violent crimes, to include murder. Sorry, I can't replicate the source, I was at work when I read it, so don't have it in my history here.

**Prestor Jon**

djones520 wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Ouze mentioned earlier about the difference in crime between New York and Chicago. Does anyone know if the police have different strategies, or if there are other methods of reducing the violence between gangs?

I think New York's (no longer active) policy of stop and frisk had a ton to do with the massive drop in their crime rate. A story I read today said that there has been an uptick this year in New York's violent crimes, to include murder. Sorry, I can't replicate the source, I was at work when I read it, so don't have it in my history here.

Depending on the specifics of the increase in crime it could be related to the time the NYPD was protesting against de Blasio by reducing services.

http://nypost.com/2014/12/29/arrests-plummet-following-execution-of-two-cops/

**Dreadclaw69**

So if it correlates then a hands off policing model appears to facilitate criminals, or at the very least no longer act as a deterrent.

**Prestor Jon**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
So if it correlates then a hands off policing model appears to facilitate criminals, or at the very least no longer act as a deterrent.

Pretty much. The best deterrent to crime is a police presence. If cops are around the chances of getting caught are greater and crime is discouraged. Conversely if there is a lack of a police presence it emboldens criminals as the odds of getting caught are lessened.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
Ok, Dogma, I've linked an academic study, conducted by Yale University, published in a per reviewed journal, whose methodology was conducted counter to your assertion.

This one? It's behind a paywall.

djones520 wrote:

You can keep banging your drum if you want, but I think your just distracting from the conversation at this point.

Which is what? Why is Chicago violent? It has a large population, and high population density.

**Ouze**

djones520 wrote:
I think New York's (no longer active) policy of stop and frisk had a ton to do with the massive drop in their crime rate.

I don't believe this is accurate, and neither does the police commissioner. NYC has gone from almost 700,000 such stops in 2011 to 22,000 in 2015, and crime has continued to drop, year after year.

djones520 wrote:
A story I read today said that there has been an uptick this year in New York's violent crimes, to include murder. Sorry, I can't replicate the source, I was at work when I read it, so don't have it in my history here.

NYC has not had an uptick in crime this year.