Talk:Crime in Detroit/Archive 1

Crime in Detroit Is Crazy
This puts Detroit in too positive a light.... I just don't think this page is balanced... (It is a really bad place!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.57.232 (talk) 00:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Somebody on the westside got killed over Gas money yesterday. User:dolladay215 (talk) 05:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one confused by the language in this article attacking the use of crime statistics to measure local crime rates relative to national data? It appears on its face to be absolutely nonsensical, and its inclusion suggests this methodology is flawed when, in fact, it is a scientifically relevant guage of a persons relative likelihood of being the victim of violent crime. If one opts to live in Detroit city proper, one is statistically more likely to be the victim of a violent crime than if one opted to live elsewhere. Obviously, these risks are aggravated or mitigated by lifestyle choices, including social status, economic status, occupation, inolvement in illicity activities, etc. But the basic fact remains - some cities are just inately more dangerous than others. This is a fact. Then we have the defense, "This is due to the many variables that influence crime in a particular study area such as population density and the degree of urbanization, modes of transportation of highway system, economic conditions, and citizens' attitudes toward crime." This whole sentence is stupid. Population variables are accounted for when crime rates are compared at per unit of population (typically 100,000 people) rates. Additionally, while it is certainly true that higher population densities tend to result in higher crime rates, on average, this fact simply means that more densely populated cities, like Detroit, are by their nature more violent and therefore more dangerous. The statement "Detroit is the most dangerous city in America" does not attempt to divine the root causes of this violence; it is simply a casual observation of elementary statistics, with which there is no argument. We are basically using data which is irrelevant to the point (relative incidence of crime by city, loosely defined in this article as "danger") to attack that point. It doesn't work, and needs to be corrected. These arguments are more appropriate in a discussion over WHY Detroit is the most dangerous city in America, not a discussion over whether it or not. They have nothing to do with whether or not Detroit fits that description as defined by highest incidence of violent crimes per person in the country. And whether the FBI thinks I should do the intelligent thing and weigh the relative risk of my family being victimized before I relocate it to a particular urban area is also irrelevant. This is the United States; we do not seek the governments permission to protect ourselves and conduct our personal affairs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.13.95 (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

dolladay215, You act as though this is something new. Shortly after I moved to Detroit in 1977 there was a turf war among police. The state, city and county sheriff's offices were dealing with budget shortfalls, and decided that all freeways within city limits were "no man's land." I read the story of a man who had a flat tire on the freeway. This first car that stopped had two fellows who relieved him of all of his cash. The second pair, in their frustration that he had no more cash for them to rob, blew his head off with a shotgun.

Detroit has seen its better days. Most economists do not expect things to pick up here for ten to twenty years. In the meantime, as more and more middle class families lose jobs and their homes, and the city loses its tax base, how can one not expect crime to get worse?--W8IMP (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent article!
Finally, I see some "balance." I was born in, and have lived near or in Detroit for fifty of my sixty-one years. After twenty years as an RN in the city's busiest emergency rooms, I can attest to plenty of felonious assaults and murders. In most instances it involved alcohol or other drugs, and many were people who knew each other prior to the crime. A substantial number were instances of domestic violence.

After a reputation as "Murder City" since the 60's, I got pretty tired of hearing about it. In the 80s we lived in the western outskirt of the city, when some California friends visited. They had to leave the city limits before sundown, because they just knew that if they did not, they would surely be killed.

I found particular interest in the refinements that business areas and many residential neighbourhoods are much safer than many other cities. For the past twenty-five years we have lived in a nice neighbourhood. There is the occasional car theft or breaking-and-entering (usually on unoccupied dwellings). One or two of our neighbours have been held-up, but we rarely worry about locking our doors. Our 36 kilo Pit/boxer does give us peace of mind.--W8IMP (talk) 14:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

i'm going to take a wild guess that you're white. Frankyfatso (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

wastes of life
people who kill others are going to jail —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.151.206 (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trying to convince
The article tries too hard to convince you from the start that crime is declining. The very first words are "Crime in Detroit, Michigan has declined by 23 percent from 2000 to 2004". First of all it comes off as hurrying to tell me that it's declining, and then the "2000 to 2004" range looks a bit cherry-picked. What about the last 10 years?

But more importantly, it states that it has declined before stating anything else, it assumes that I think that I have some preconception about crime in Detroit when I don't (I'm not American). So while the article seems factually balanced, it seems to try by the way it presents things to attempt to fix people's preconceptions, and when you don't have any it's a bit of a strange read. --89.124.240.70 (talk) 17:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Organization
The article needs a bit of reorganization; attempts to balance POV -- between those who want to make sure that neither the positives nor the negatives get left out -- have resulted in something that's a little hard to follow. Will work on it. DavidOaks (talk) 12:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Much better and what I had in mind. It seems the article is implying police under-reported just for 2008 using FBI guidelines regarding justifiable homicide classification, yet the article described it as 'systematically' or 'routinely'. The article makes no attempt to explain whether other cities have used a similiar approach. Thanks for keeping it a fact based context without the inflamatory terms or smears. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 14:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibility of merging the article with the Detroit main article
I think that, because of the shortness of this article, it should me merged. Any other thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastado (talk • contribs) 03:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- the main article is already very long. This one could easily be expanded with sections on organized crime in Detroit, gangs in Detroit, a historical view (the Purple Gang and prhibition)....DavidOaks (talk) 12:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

why is it called "forcible rape" instead of just rape? all rape is forced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.215.162 (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's distinct from statutory rape (for example). DavidOaks (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)