his point was that he thinks low income areas are being targeted with a higher police presence. That is so wrong it’s hard to believe oc has ever been to a city in the us. I actually doubt he has for any serious amount of time. High tax areas are covered with police in US cities at a rate far above poor inner city areas.
I lived in Menlo Park for a number of years in the late 80s and early 90s - in group house a few blocks away from the border with East Palo Alto. At the time, East PA was poor and had a massively underfunded police department. This resulted in drug dealers realizing the city was a great place to deal from - as the probability they'd get caught was really low. In 1992, East PA had the US's highest per capita murder rate. (We'd hear small arms fire many nights and I remember listening to the radio and hearing a BBC reporter calling in a report from less than a mile away from my house (talking from a phone booth in the since demolished Whiskey Gulch neighborhood) - talking about a war zone like atmosphere with dealers openly carrying Uzi's.) Anyway, in spite of all this nothing ever happened on our street. We walked around without any fear of crime at all. Correlation isn't causation, but it's hard to shake an impression that having an actual police department had something to do with that. Incentives matter and culture tends to follow if they change hard enough.
> Wealthy areas absolutely have a higher police per capita presence than even the most well funded low income neighborhood.
As a test, you can call the police from an address in a wealthy area, report a crime in progress, and do the same from an address in a poor area, and time how long it takes before they show up.
Big cities are pretty safe. For instance you more likely to be a victim of a crime in rural northern Wisconsin, like Barron County, than you are in Milwaukee.
Don't let your narrative be shaped by stats that aren't proportional.
I'm familiar enough with Barron County, WI to doubt this. I grew up in neighboring Rusk County and my mother spends about half her time in Cumberland. While there are some disturbing incidents of violent crime, very few people there would feel that are at high risk of being a crime victim.
These stats aren't quite perfect, since this is for Barron the town versus Barron the county, but it really doesn't seem to support your view. The other small towns in Barron County that I checked were rated even better than Barron itself and rated as "A+".
I'm willing to believe that there is some axis on which your statement is correct but I doubtful it's the one that most people would use. Can you offer any more support for your position than just your say so?
Edit: As a quick gauge for others, I'll mention that most cars are still kept unlocked. The joke was that they were only locked in the fall, to prevent people from "gifting" you their excess zucchini. My father always left the keys in his cars as well, in case someone needed to borrow it. Our house was locked only if we left for long vacations. The key was lost sometime after I left home, and no attempt was made to replace it. I'm not nearly as familiar with Milwaukee, but I'd be surprised if this is the norm there.
Those could all be true and still the statement true.
For example if all crime in Barron county was entirely random as to selection of victim, and in Milwaukee it 100% only happened to poor blacks, then infinite crime in Milwaukee could never affect you unless you were poor and black, whereas Barron county could affect anyone.
But I suspect that there’s a sleight of hand on “crime” - people usually mean crime by force against another, but technically suicide by meth overdose is two or three crimes.
I agree it's possible with some definition of crime, and I'd be interested to see what that definition is. I also think there's an interesting effect where it's possible for there to be less of some kinds of crimes in "high crime areas" because people take greater precautions. I also agree with OP's comment that drug related problems in Northern Wisconsin have gotten much worse since I last lived there. Still, I'd like to see the stats rather than just the assertion.
People say this but I'm skeptical. I regularly leave valuables in my car. My windows have never been broken. I've never had anything stolen. Nor do I know anyone who has.
All the stores have free-to-use, unlocked public bathrooms. All the product is available on the shelf for anyone to grab.
When I go on travel to more urban locations, that's not what I see. Unfortunately the urban blight is creeping closer every year, and judging by the crime reports, in a few years or decades I too will be experiencing these joys.
I have heard in especially bad-off areas desperate meth addicts are a theft issue. Usually they target people they know, so small comfort as it may be to their friends and relatives, it's usually not a random crime.
Double checking I think I'm wrong. I may have been thinking of some specific crime. But Milwaukee is specifically bad due to historical segregation issues. Anyway drug and addiction issues have hit rural issues really bad
City centers have far, far more theft crime objectively from a dollar value perspective. The vast majority of this crime comes from two sources: employers and police. This is widely documented fact.
I am extremely pro-labor and would have much stricter enforcement and severer penalties for wage theft, but home burglary, carjackings, and muggings are qualitatively different than wage theft and it does not make sense to compare the two.
It’s directly comparable to say shoplifting which is one of the social ills complained about in this discussion
Police theft is directly comparable to burglary (which police and employers each on their own manage to vastly outnumber) or even carjacking (police civil forfeiture accounts for many jacked cars and the encounters can involve violence and coercion under threat of immediate violence or execution)
