7 ms·

What crime stats don't reveal about crime in San Francisco

53 points by gsibble 4y ago

badcarbine 4y ago
Fedbook.net ftw
threatofrain 4y ago
I'm not sure why this argument is persuasive. It would be like saying Palestine, OH is still safe because the risk of cancer per square mile is very good. If anything, we might naively expect that density itself causes homicide since proximity means opportunity. But on homicide incidence, SF (6.35)¹ tracks closely to the national average (7.8)². Another argument posed in the article is that decriminalization is screwing with record keeping. But for homicides? Homicide is the most difficult to obscure. --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm
- gsibble 4y ago
  I think crime per sq/mile is a good judge of how safe an area is to walk around in for instance.
  - icedistilled 4y ago
    if the crime stats showed the same rate per sq mile for two cities, one with a population of 1M and the other 100k, would you want to go to the 100K city or the 1M city?
    - gsibble 4y ago
      The stat they cited was the total number of murders so really what I'm comparing is murders per square mile.
  - threatofrain 4y ago
    Would you say St Louis is a safer city because it looks very clean and classy, well loved by tourists, and also has sparser homicides? Similarly, would you say that Palestine OH is a safer city on biological risks by arguments of geographic sparsity?
TapWaterBandit 4y ago
As a foreign observer, what are the locals thoughts on all this? I assumed it was scaremongering after seeing comments saying that theft was legal in SF up until the $300 point (the number might be incorrect, can't remember exactly) but then saw some articles popping up saying lots of big franchises like CVS were shutting their stores due to rampant theft. But from where I sit (in Australia) it seems so bizarre to allow theft like this I struggle to believe it is real. Can anyone on the ground confirm? As a bit of contact I spent 1 year in Texas and loved it (and loved seeing all th sights and other states too) but no way would theft like that be tolerated there. Why are locals so tolerant of this type of crime? I can't imagine they like crime more than people anywhere else so why aren't they protesting or something?
- thekevjames 4y ago
  FWIW in 8 years of living in SF, I've reported three theft-related crimes. The two below $300 never got any response (from my perspective!) and the one above $300 (eventually) resulted in the return of the relevant property. Mo idea how exact or how essential the dollar value is... But it seemed to matter?
- gsibble 4y ago
  I lived in SF for 8 years. SOMA. I was assaulted twice and mugged twice. I left because I was fearful for my life. And now my friend Bob is dead, exactly like how I thought I'd end up. Make of that what you will.
  - at_a_remove 4y ago
    I am sorry that you have lost your friend. It's been a few years, but I believe he was the guy presenting via teleconference as various groups he had a hand in, like Third Degree Glass, were trying to keep Makers in St. Louis going after TechShop's stumble. I remember thinking that was pretty neat of him -- a lot of people who leave the Midwest just don't look back at all.
- rainytuesday 4y ago
  Most cases are resolved by plea agreements, so the buck stops at the district attorney's office. eg. Carjacker gets apprehended in neighboring county, wildly different outcome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U_PAWJNrG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U_PAWJNrG8
monero-xmr 4y ago
Doesn't matter what statistics say - there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say. I know with my own eyes that SF is dangerous. There is a criminal element intermixed with your daily life, forcing you to be on guard in most outdoor interactions. This might be my bias, I should be OK with drug addicts strung out on the sidewalk, I'm just privileged, blah blah. Don't care. ~6 years ago we went out to get lunch with a company I was visiting, and a guy came onto the patio and just screamed at the top of his lungs for several minutes before walking away. Everyone there just considered it normal, the servers kept serving, everyone just stared at their plates or phones as this screaming banshee went "AHHHH AHHH AHHHH [breathe] AHH AHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHH" among everyone eating. Absurd. How do you live like this?
- gsibble 4y ago
  I mean, all you need to know San Francisco is dangerous is to look around while you are there.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  My uncle has schizophrenia and were he not housed in a a mobile home paid for by my father, would probably be up to something like the guy you encountered. But I suppose the question is what legal remedy is there for someone yelling at you? What would you like to have happened to this guy?
  - DamnYuppie 4y ago
    I would like for them to be removed from society until that can behave in a civil manner.
    - wizofaus 4y ago
      The programmer in me suspects that's a form of hiding bugs instead of fixing them...
      - khazhoux 4y ago
sbuttgereit 4y ago
Let me start by saying that, as a San Francisco resident of almost 20 years, I agree with the central thesis of the post: San Francisco is a something hole that I'd leave in a heartbeat if the decision was solely mine. But I don't think this is the post to defend that position. It seems to be driven principally by emotion, chooses odd stats to make it's points, and when it talks about decriminalization of "things" it doesn't get any more specific than I just did. I get that the author is angry; understandably so. I think there is a coherent argument to be made supporting the author's assertions. I just don't think this author in this post has actually advanced their own point. I do think that it is critical for a serious, as opposed to emotional, response to what the author is seeing to be made. Otherwise worse for San Francisco is on the way.
- gsibble 4y ago
  When I see CNN saying San Francisco isn't that dangerous and comparing it to Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago, the thing that immediately comes to mind is how much more dense that crime is in San Francisco and how much that affects the safety of, say, walking around the city. So, while these may be somewhat emotional arguments, San Francisco has a serious problem that I see it doing nothing to address, which is why I left in 2018, and many people continue to just deny it has any problem at all, hiding behind these "stats" among other things. The first step in fixing a problem is admitting you have one and San Francisco won't even do that.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    > the thing that immediately comes to mind is how much more dense that crime is in San Francisco I saw this same idea in the San Francisco subreddit today, and it's the first time I've ever heard of expressing crime per square mile as any kind of statistic. It seems like reaching for some way in which San Francisco is extraordinary when it's realized that the per capita crime numbers aren't particularly out of line with any other major US city. But other cities have crime too. I live in south Texas, and anecdotally my house was broken into twice in 2021, my parent's neighbors' house was left vacant and was subsequently ransacked and had a vehicle stolen as well. Just this week their electrician's shop was burgled and only a strong gate prevented the thieves from getting away with his truck, but they still stole $20K in tools and wire. A few years ago one of my co-workers was shot to death by his wife. It's clear that San Francisco has some idiosyncrasies of its own, but I think the US is just a particularly dangerous country in the developed world.
mixdup 4y ago
I'm pretty sure this guy has completely mixed up cities and metro areas. The City of Atlanta is about 60% smaller than the city of San Francisco. This guy is almost cetainly referring to the Atlanta Metropolitan Area being bigger than the City of San Francisco, which is true, but now you're comparing two different things and almost certainly using the city of Atlanta crime statistics. There's actually no real sources cited, and no actual statistics cited so this blog post is garbage. I'm sorry his friend died in a horrible way, but it should not lead to knee-jerk emotion-based reactions that are not based in reality
- gsibble 4y ago
  I was reacting to a CNN article earlier which did not make it clear if they were using the metropolitan or city statistics. Apologies.
olliej 4y ago
The crime rate in SF does seem high, but I have a few issues here: > When you do the math, the incidents of all types per square mile in San Francisco is by far and away the highest in the country with zero comparison Well yes, because crime rates are a product of population not land area. It should not be surprising that SF with a population of 874k in 49 square miles has more crime per square mile than, say Charlotte 873k in 309 square miles. I am not saying crime is low in SF, I'm saying "I don't like this relevant comparison so I will use this other one" isn't super helpful. > If San Francisco were as large as Atlanta, Chicago, etc. its stats would reveal a completely different story. Yes, because the population if it were the size of Atlanta it would have 2.4 million people, e.g. almost five times the population. > Most of the victims are innocent civilians. Just watch the news What are the actual statistics here - I could believe this claim, but citing the news isn't relevant because its biased in favor of reporting crime against civilians (man bites dog vs dog bites man). > Lastly, San Francisco has decriminalized so many things that used to be crimes that now, magically, they no longer show up in the statistics I agree with this statement. The crime rates in the Castro would be much higher if we hadn't decriminalized homosexuality. Crime rates in the mission would be much higher if weed remained illegal. Of course, you'd also gets spikes in crime rates if you made it illegal to have unoccupied residential property, or made labor code violations criminal rather than civil code violations. I get that this guy's friend has been murdered but to pretend the issue is that crimes statistics lie isn't going to stop it happening. It seems much more likely to me that the core issue is that the typical divide in US cities between affluent areas and poor areas does not exist in SF, and by proxy the gap between high and low crime regions doesn't exist. I'm sure plenty of people in plenty of cities have areas they don't walk through but SF makes that impossible.
- gsibble 4y ago
  They weren't using per capita numbers. They were using raw "total number of homicides" and arguing SF was safer. This was a CNN article earlier today.
gsibble 4y ago
Actual stats on the most dangerous cities in the US according to ChatGPT. As you can see, San Francisco is off the charts: San Francisco, CA: Population: 883,305, City Area: 46.87 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 7,845.3, Crime rate per square mile: 7,603.9 Baltimore, MD: Population: 593,490, City Area: 80.94 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 5,182.7, Crime rate per square mile: 2,421.3 Detroit, MI: Population: 673,104, City Area: 139.44 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 4,548.0, Crime rate per square mile: 1,599.8 Milwaukee, WI: Population: 590,157, City Area: 96.12 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,784.1, Crime rate per square mile: 1,199.9 Cleveland, OH: Population: 381,009, City Area: 82.47 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,341.1, Crime rate per square mile: 1,213.7 St. Louis, MO: Population: 300,576, City Area: 62.06 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,194.6, Crime rate per square mile: 1,110.7 Albuquerque, NM: Population: 564,651, City Area: 189.52 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,472.8, Crime rate per square mile: 482.6 Memphis, TN: Population: 650,618, City Area: 324.00 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,949.5, Crime rate per square mile: 616.8 Kansas City, MO: Population: 495,327, City Area: 319.03 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,322.8, Crime rate per square mile: 985.4 Nashville, TN: Population: 670,820, City Area: 475.10 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,008.5, Crime rate per square mile: 909.9 Indianapolis, IN: Population: 877,335, City Area: 368.02 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,049.5, Crime rate per square mile: 740.7 Columbus, OH: Population: 898,553, City Area: 223.11 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,150.6, Crime rate per square mile: 730.9 Philadelphia, PA: Population: 1,584,064, City Area: 134.18 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 968.9, Crime rate per square mile: 617.9 Los Angeles, CA: Population: 3,971,883, City Area: 468.67 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 585.8, Crime rate per square mile: 349.2 (Answer courtesy of ChatGPT)
dangus 4y ago
Why does crime per square mile matter? Per capita is the only metric that matters. You can't commit homicide against a plot of land. Of course Houston has low crime per square mile, it's automobile sprawl hell. Walking across a dang parking lot takes 5 minutes. > Second, most crime in these other cities is gang on gang. In San Francisco, that's not the case. Most of the victims are innocent civilians. Just watch the news. Big, fat, stinking, CITATION NEEDED. Just watch the news...really?? That's your source, local news crime scare television? Want real numbers? Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... Sort by Murder and Nonnegligant Manslaughter. San Francisco ranks 66th out of 100, with the rank of 1 being worst. In other words, it's below average in terms of crime. More homicidal cities include Phoenix, Denver, and many other cities that are generally considered to be safe places to be. Author: I understand your friend just died and that's really rough but that's not an excuse to throw objectivity out of the window. I see you’re an expert in startups, business, and engineering, and while you’re probably really smart it might be wise to accept that you might not be an expert in this area.
joeman1000 4y ago
First, I’m sorry for the author and Bob Lee himself for what happened. I hope his family gets some closure and the people responsible are put to punishment. No doubt SF is dangerous, but this article is crap. I don’t really see ‘crime pressure’ as a legitimate statistic (crime per square meter). I think it’s normal to talk ‘per capita’ instead. And the evidence for most crime being committed against civilians is: “just watch the news”. Sorry, but that’s not evidence. The news shows cherry-picked ultraviolence to make us feel scared or angry.

53 points by gsibble 4y ago

Fedbook.net ftw

I'm not sure why this argument is persuasive. It would be like saying Palestine, OH is still safe because the risk of cancer per square mile is very good. If anything, we might naively expect that density itself causes homicide since proximity means opportunity. But on homicide incidence, SF (6.35)¹ tracks closely to the national average (7.8)². Another argument posed in the article is that decriminalization is screwing with record keeping. But for homicides? Homicide is the most difficult to obscure. --- [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

gsibble 4y ago
I think crime per sq/mile is a good judge of how safe an area is to walk around in for instance.
- icedistilled 4y ago
  if the crime stats showed the same rate per sq mile for two cities, one with a population of 1M and the other 100k, would you want to go to the 100K city or the 1M city?
  - gsibble 4y ago
    The stat they cited was the total number of murders so really what I'm comparing is murders per square mile.
- threatofrain 4y ago
  Would you say St Louis is a safer city because it looks very clean and classy, well loved by tourists, and also has sparser homicides? Similarly, would you say that Palestine OH is a safer city on biological risks by arguments of geographic sparsity?

TapWaterBandit 4y ago

As a foreign observer, what are the locals thoughts on all this? I assumed it was scaremongering after seeing comments saying that theft was legal in SF up until the $300 point (the number might be incorrect, can't remember exactly) but then saw some articles popping up saying lots of big franchises like CVS were shutting their stores due to rampant theft. But from where I sit (in Australia) it seems so bizarre to allow theft like this I struggle to believe it is real. Can anyone on the ground confirm? As a bit of contact I spent 1 year in Texas and loved it (and loved seeing all th sights and other states too) but no way would theft like that be tolerated there. Why are locals so tolerant of this type of crime? I can't imagine they like crime more than people anywhere else so why aren't they protesting or something?

thekevjames 4y ago
FWIW in 8 years of living in SF, I've reported three theft-related crimes. The two below $300 never got any response (from my perspective!) and the one above $300 (eventually) resulted in the return of the relevant property. Mo idea how exact or how essential the dollar value is... But it seemed to matter?
gsibble 4y ago
I lived in SF for 8 years. SOMA. I was assaulted twice and mugged twice. I left because I was fearful for my life. And now my friend Bob is dead, exactly like how I thought I'd end up. Make of that what you will.
- at_a_remove 4y ago
  I am sorry that you have lost your friend. It's been a few years, but I believe he was the guy presenting via teleconference as various groups he had a hand in, like Third Degree Glass, were trying to keep Makers in St. Louis going after TechShop's stumble. I remember thinking that was pretty neat of him -- a lot of people who leave the Midwest just don't look back at all.
rainytuesday 4y ago
Most cases are resolved by plea agreements, so the buck stops at the district attorney's office. eg. Carjacker gets apprehended in neighboring county, wildly different outcome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U_PAWJNrG8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0U_PAWJNrG8

monero-xmr 4y ago

Doesn't matter what statistics say - there are lies, damn lies, and statistics, as they say. I know with my own eyes that SF is dangerous. There is a criminal element intermixed with your daily life, forcing you to be on guard in most outdoor interactions. This might be my bias, I should be OK with drug addicts strung out on the sidewalk, I'm just privileged, blah blah. Don't care. ~6 years ago we went out to get lunch with a company I was visiting, and a guy came onto the patio and just screamed at the top of his lungs for several minutes before walking away. Everyone there just considered it normal, the servers kept serving, everyone just stared at their plates or phones as this screaming banshee went "AHHHH AHHH AHHHH [breathe] AHH AHHHHHH AHHHHHHHHHHH" among everyone eating. Absurd. How do you live like this?

gsibble 4y ago
I mean, all you need to know San Francisco is dangerous is to look around while you are there.
hotpotamus 4y ago
My uncle has schizophrenia and were he not housed in a a mobile home paid for by my father, would probably be up to something like the guy you encountered. But I suppose the question is what legal remedy is there for someone yelling at you? What would you like to have happened to this guy?
- DamnYuppie 4y ago
  I would like for them to be removed from society until that can behave in a civil manner.
  - wizofaus 4y ago
    The programmer in me suspects that's a form of hiding bugs instead of fixing them...
    - khazhoux 4y ago

sbuttgereit 4y ago

Let me start by saying that, as a San Francisco resident of almost 20 years, I agree with the central thesis of the post: San Francisco is a something hole that I'd leave in a heartbeat if the decision was solely mine. But I don't think this is the post to defend that position. It seems to be driven principally by emotion, chooses odd stats to make it's points, and when it talks about decriminalization of "things" it doesn't get any more specific than I just did. I get that the author is angry; understandably so. I think there is a coherent argument to be made supporting the author's assertions. I just don't think this author in this post has actually advanced their own point. I do think that it is critical for a serious, as opposed to emotional, response to what the author is seeing to be made. Otherwise worse for San Francisco is on the way.

gsibble 4y ago
When I see CNN saying San Francisco isn't that dangerous and comparing it to Houston, Atlanta, and Chicago, the thing that immediately comes to mind is how much more dense that crime is in San Francisco and how much that affects the safety of, say, walking around the city. So, while these may be somewhat emotional arguments, San Francisco has a serious problem that I see it doing nothing to address, which is why I left in 2018, and many people continue to just deny it has any problem at all, hiding behind these "stats" among other things. The first step in fixing a problem is admitting you have one and San Francisco won't even do that.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  > the thing that immediately comes to mind is how much more dense that crime is in San Francisco I saw this same idea in the San Francisco subreddit today, and it's the first time I've ever heard of expressing crime per square mile as any kind of statistic. It seems like reaching for some way in which San Francisco is extraordinary when it's realized that the per capita crime numbers aren't particularly out of line with any other major US city. But other cities have crime too. I live in south Texas, and anecdotally my house was broken into twice in 2021, my parent's neighbors' house was left vacant and was subsequently ransacked and had a vehicle stolen as well. Just this week their electrician's shop was burgled and only a strong gate prevented the thieves from getting away with his truck, but they still stole $20K in tools and wire. A few years ago one of my co-workers was shot to death by his wife. It's clear that San Francisco has some idiosyncrasies of its own, but I think the US is just a particularly dangerous country in the developed world.

mixdup 4y ago

I'm pretty sure this guy has completely mixed up cities and metro areas. The City of Atlanta is about 60% smaller than the city of San Francisco. This guy is almost cetainly referring to the Atlanta Metropolitan Area being bigger than the City of San Francisco, which is true, but now you're comparing two different things and almost certainly using the city of Atlanta crime statistics. There's actually no real sources cited, and no actual statistics cited so this blog post is garbage. I'm sorry his friend died in a horrible way, but it should not lead to knee-jerk emotion-based reactions that are not based in reality

gsibble 4y ago
I was reacting to a CNN article earlier which did not make it clear if they were using the metropolitan or city statistics. Apologies.

olliej 4y ago

The crime rate in SF does seem high, but I have a few issues here: > When you do the math, the incidents of all types per square mile in San Francisco is by far and away the highest in the country with zero comparison Well yes, because crime rates are a product of population not land area. It should not be surprising that SF with a population of 874k in 49 square miles has more crime per square mile than, say Charlotte 873k in 309 square miles. I am not saying crime is low in SF, I'm saying "I don't like this relevant comparison so I will use this other one" isn't super helpful. > If San Francisco were as large as Atlanta, Chicago, etc. its stats would reveal a completely different story. Yes, because the population if it were the size of Atlanta it would have 2.4 million people, e.g. almost five times the population. > Most of the victims are innocent civilians. Just watch the news What are the actual statistics here - I could believe this claim, but citing the news isn't relevant because its biased in favor of reporting crime against civilians (man bites dog vs dog bites man). > Lastly, San Francisco has decriminalized so many things that used to be crimes that now, magically, they no longer show up in the statistics I agree with this statement. The crime rates in the Castro would be much higher if we hadn't decriminalized homosexuality. Crime rates in the mission would be much higher if weed remained illegal. Of course, you'd also gets spikes in crime rates if you made it illegal to have unoccupied residential property, or made labor code violations criminal rather than civil code violations. I get that this guy's friend has been murdered but to pretend the issue is that crimes statistics lie isn't going to stop it happening. It seems much more likely to me that the core issue is that the typical divide in US cities between affluent areas and poor areas does not exist in SF, and by proxy the gap between high and low crime regions doesn't exist. I'm sure plenty of people in plenty of cities have areas they don't walk through but SF makes that impossible.

gsibble 4y ago
They weren't using per capita numbers. They were using raw "total number of homicides" and arguing SF was safer. This was a CNN article earlier today.

gsibble 4y ago

Actual stats on the most dangerous cities in the US according to ChatGPT. As you can see, San Francisco is off the charts: San Francisco, CA: Population: 883,305, City Area: 46.87 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 7,845.3, Crime rate per square mile: 7,603.9 Baltimore, MD: Population: 593,490, City Area: 80.94 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 5,182.7, Crime rate per square mile: 2,421.3 Detroit, MI: Population: 673,104, City Area: 139.44 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 4,548.0, Crime rate per square mile: 1,599.8 Milwaukee, WI: Population: 590,157, City Area: 96.12 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,784.1, Crime rate per square mile: 1,199.9 Cleveland, OH: Population: 381,009, City Area: 82.47 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,341.1, Crime rate per square mile: 1,213.7 St. Louis, MO: Population: 300,576, City Area: 62.06 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,194.6, Crime rate per square mile: 1,110.7 Albuquerque, NM: Population: 564,651, City Area: 189.52 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,472.8, Crime rate per square mile: 482.6 Memphis, TN: Population: 650,618, City Area: 324.00 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 3,949.5, Crime rate per square mile: 616.8 Kansas City, MO: Population: 495,327, City Area: 319.03 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,322.8, Crime rate per square mile: 985.4 Nashville, TN: Population: 670,820, City Area: 475.10 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,008.5, Crime rate per square mile: 909.9 Indianapolis, IN: Population: 877,335, City Area: 368.02 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,049.5, Crime rate per square mile: 740.7 Columbus, OH: Population: 898,553, City Area: 223.11 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 1,150.6, Crime rate per square mile: 730.9 Philadelphia, PA: Population: 1,584,064, City Area: 134.18 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 968.9, Crime rate per square mile: 617.9 Los Angeles, CA: Population: 3,971,883, City Area: 468.67 sq mi, Crime rate per 100,000 people: 585.8, Crime rate per square mile: 349.2 (Answer courtesy of ChatGPT)

dangus 4y ago

Why does crime per square mile matter? Per capita is the only metric that matters. You can't commit homicide against a plot of land. Of course Houston has low crime per square mile, it's automobile sprawl hell. Walking across a dang parking lot takes 5 minutes. > Second, most crime in these other cities is gang on gang. In San Francisco, that's not the case. Most of the victims are innocent civilians. Just watch the news. Big, fat, stinking, CITATION NEEDED. Just watch the news...really?? That's your source, local news crime scare television? Want real numbers? Go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b... Sort by Murder and Nonnegligant Manslaughter. San Francisco ranks 66th out of 100, with the rank of 1 being worst. In other words, it's below average in terms of crime. More homicidal cities include Phoenix, Denver, and many other cities that are generally considered to be safe places to be. Author: I understand your friend just died and that's really rough but that's not an excuse to throw objectivity out of the window. I see you’re an expert in startups, business, and engineering, and while you’re probably really smart it might be wise to accept that you might not be an expert in this area.

joeman1000 4y ago

First, I’m sorry for the author and Bob Lee himself for what happened. I hope his family gets some closure and the people responsible are put to punishment. No doubt SF is dangerous, but this article is crap. I don’t really see ‘crime pressure’ as a legitimate statistic (crime per square meter). I think it’s normal to talk ‘per capita’ instead. And the evidence for most crime being committed against civilians is: “just watch the news”. Sorry, but that’s not evidence. The news shows cherry-picked ultraviolence to make us feel scared or angry.