Is crime on the rise?

[Belsnickel]

So, I was sitting around, this morning, sipping my coffee, doing the NYT crossword, and listening to podcasts when this one cam eon my feed.

https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/otm/episodes/on-the-media-media-shoplifting-panic-ai-journalism-wrong

I know we have had a thread or threads on here about stores closing due to shoplifting and of course there are many discussions on here about crime rates and what not, but this was definitely an interesting listen that pushed against some of these narratives. The link also contains links to articles that are referenced in the podcast.

Some of the key takeaways from the listen:

• The value of loss due to shoplifting is going up, but not the rate of shoplifting. The change is due to the prices of goods increasing.
• Crime data is bad, reporting on it is bad, and we should not feel as bad as we do about crime.
• Many of the numbers surrounding shoplifting reporting are even worse than general crime statistics.
• There is not evidence that more relaxed laws/enforcement have a causal relationship to increased crime.
• Some of the reports on shoplifting came from one person citing a group that cited that person that cited that group...(see the problem?)
• While crime rates are on the decline, there is a perceived increase in crime that is higher than it has ever been based on polling.
  

Very interesting stuff. I know most of you, probably all of you, will just comment on this without listening to the podcast and reading the articles. But, I tried.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

I promise I'll give it as listen, but I will say beforehand that the crime rate is noticeably higher than it was pre 2020. The UCR from the FBi shows this.

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/4258799-is-crime-going-up-in-america-some-types-are-new-fbi-data-shows/

Note that while there was a drop in violent crime in 2022 it is still significantly higher than it was pre 2020. Property is also up. I will add a little insider knowledge that I cannot, obviously, prove so believe it as you will. It is very common for crime to be underreported now due to policy changes. Law enforcement has been instructed to arrest for lesser charges than the offense would otherwise indicate. Los Angeles County has a policy of not even booking minors for most offenses, yes this includes many felonies, even some violent ones. If a minor is not booked then no record of their offense is sent to the FBI. I know for a fact that this is also happening in other major cities. One might then ask who is keeping track of these pre-booking diversion cases? That's an excellent question that I have asked myself in meetings with high level people (e.g. LAPD and Sherriff's Commanders, the number two in the DA and PD's office, high ranking county and city officials) and I have never received a straight answer.

The ultimate point being made is that there is a lot of effort being made to hide the true extent of criminal activity in major cities. I can only personally speak for Los Angeles, but friends in other cities have confirmed identical efforts. I'll also add that I have spoken to many citizens and business owners (yes, they are citizens too) who related that they don't even call law enforcement for many crimes as they know nothing is going to happen anyways.

The key takeaway from all of this, which does not rely on believing anything I have related about my personal experiences, is that crime is significantly higher than it was pre 2020. This increase can be laid squarely at the feet of pro-criminal legislation and elected officials, not the pandemic. The last sentence is opinion of course, but you'll all please excuse me for believing the evidence of my own two eyes on this one.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2023, 02:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I promise I'll give it as listen, but I will say beforehand that the crime rate is noticeably higher than it was pre 2020. The UCR from the FBi shows this.

https://thehill.com/homenews/nexstar_media_wire/4258799-is-crime-going-up-in-america-some-types-are-new-fbi-data-shows/

Note that while there was a drop in violent crime in 2022 it is still significantly higher than it was pre 2020. Property is also up.

So, I will stick to focusing on the data here. The data from the article shows that violent crime was about even between 2019 and 2022, and 2022 property crimes were significantly lower than in 2019.

Overall, when we look at any sort of trends we cannot rely on just a couple of years, especially when those years involve something like the pandemic which upended to many things. So the data-based part of your argument really supports the arguments made in the podcast and in those articles.

I won't comment on the anecdotal stuff because of the nature of it. Discussing that sort of thing is where these conversations go off the rails.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-09-2023, 02:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, I will stick to focusing on the data here. The data from the article shows that violent crime was about even between 2019 and 2022, and 2022 property crimes were significantly lower than in 2019.

Overall, when we look at any sort of trends we cannot rely on just a couple of years, especially when those years involve something like the pandemic which upended to many things. So the data-based part of your argument really supports the arguments made in the podcast and in those articles.

I won't comment on the anecdotal stuff because of the nature of it. Discussing that sort of thing is where these conversations go off the rails.

I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  You want an accurate gauge of the true crime rate, use homicides.  A dead body cannot be covered up or undercharged.  I get your focus on data, but when the data is deliberately corrupted it rather loses its relevance.  Much like Biden's "strong economy" the evidence of the every day lives of people rather trumps raw numbers.

[Belsnickel]

(12-09-2023, 03:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've said it before, but it bears repeating.  You want an accurate gauge of the true crime rate, use homicides.  A dead body cannot be covered up or undercharged.  I get your focus on data, but when the data is deliberately corrupted it rather loses its relevance.  Much like Biden's "strong economy" the evidence of the every day lives of people rather trumps raw numbers.

And what we saw in 2022 was a trend back down after the pandemic and an expected continued drop for 2023 according to the article when it comes to homicides. So, according to your metric, the crime rate is falling.

As for the strong economy analogy, what holds up with that is that perceptions of every day people don't often match reality. The economy actually is strong right now, but people don't feel it because a strong economy doesn't always equate to more money for the average person plus that isn't the messaging they are getting.

I get that there are problems with crime data. In fact, the lack of reporting is a big focus on the podcast. However, it's what we have to go with. What's more unreliable than underreported data? Anecdotal evidence. I can take underreported data and use modelling to create a more accurate picture with a margin of error. Anecdotes are far more subjective and unreliable.

[GMDino]

So I poste a while back a link to a podcast that was part of a series on guns and gun control.

This episode kind of fits into this conversation.

https://www.pushkin.fm/podcasts/revisionist-history/guns-part-4-moral-hazard

Quote:Robert Kennedy was killed by an assassin’s bullet in 1968, ending his presidential run. Had he been shot today, would he have lived? A what-if story about homicides and medical care and the moral consequences of a world where trauma surgeons have gotten really, really good at what they do. 

Essentially we have gotten better at saving the lives of gunshot victims plus we have started to put the care in the areas where the victims are more likely to be, which increase the rate of survival.

So we may see a rise in attempted homicides but a drop in homicides. 

Just an side to the discussion about rising crime or rising homicide rates.

[hollodero]

First, full disclaimer, I will indeed not listen to the podcast. Sorry.
What i felt like adding anyways - imho, this whole relying on statistics to prove a point is a flawed approach. Crime rates can fall and rise for several reasons and by several measures, it really does not prove conclusively whether any administration does good on crime or not. Each interested party will interpret the data as they please.

On the other hand, there is an actual cop in California giving anecdotal evidence, I am not willing to just dismiss that so easily as meaningless. Think of the poster what you please, but I for one do not consider him one to exaggerate or lie about personal experiences just to underline an initial point, like a blind partisan maybe would. So, there's probably something to it at least. In the end though, it's not even necessary to just rely on his words alone. They actually are echoed plenty. Eg. people in Californian cities actually are indeed quite dissatisfied about drime in their state, and that's not on a FOX echo chamber to blame. I feel that's just a blind spot on the liberal side, all too easily dismissed with a crime rate statistic. At the very least, imho there needs to be a far bigger acknowledgement that this is an important issue for quite a lot of people, and not for crazy reasons. You can debate whether shoplifting is up or down all day, it does not change the fact that probably there are problems deserving more attention. If only for tactical reasons. Seems there are plenty of people who think similar to SSF and detest Trump, but just can't stomach lliberal talking points on this issue and hence are not gettable.

Two cents given.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2023, 01:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: First, full disclaimer, I will indeed not listen to the podcast. Sorry.
What i felt like adding anyways - imho, this whole relying on statistics to prove a point is a flawed approach. Crime rates can fall and rise for several reasons and by several measures, it really does not prove conclusively whether any administration does good on crime or not. Each interested party will interpret the data as they please.

On the other hand, there is an actual cop in California giving anecdotal evidence, I am not willing to just dismiss that so easily as meaningless. Think of the poster what you please, but I for one do not consider him one to exaggerate or lie about personal experiences just to underline an initial point, like a blind partisan maybe would. So, there's probably something to it at least. In the end though, it's not even necessary to just rely on his words alone. They actually are echoed plenty. Eg. people in Californian cities actually are indeed quite dissatisfied about drime in their state, and that's not on a FOX echo chamber to blame. I feel that's just a blind spot on the liberal side, all too easily dismissed with a crime rate statistic. At the very least, imho there needs to be a far bigger acknowledgement that this is an important issue for quite a lot of people, and not for crazy reasons. You can debate whether shoplifting is up or down all day, it does not change the fact that probably there are problems deserving more attention. If only for tactical reasons. Seems there are plenty of people who think similar to SSF and detest Trump, but just can't stomach lliberal talking points on this issue and hence are not gettable.

Two cents given.

I do not dismiss SSF's statements as meaningless, but anecdotal evidence is unreliable when discussing the facts. The reason for this isn't about exaggerations but because the information is difficult to measure and because it isn't not comprehensive enough. We have one officer telling us things. Maybe he has 100 fellow LEOs around the country or in his department that he interacts with regularly and shares these conversations with. Even 100 is a smaller sample set than what we have with the crime reporting data. Plus, they are basing their anecdotes on their experiences which can be wildly different even in departments based on where their jurisdiction is and their role in the department. Plus, who they speak with is dependent on social circles.

By its very nature, anecdotal evidence such as what we are getting from SSF is an unreliable measure for these sorts of things. I am not bashing SSF for this, and I would hope he knows that is the case. I approach all things in this way. When I speak about what I do I readily acknowledge the limitations of my experiences in my anecdotal evidence.

Now, part of what you talk about in your response is something discussed in the podcast. Historically, the issue of crime perception has been partisan. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats see it as more of an issue and vice versa. However, right now it is something like 93% of Republicans and also 58% of Democrats. Even when a Republican is in the White House the Democrat numbers aren't typically that high and it never gets that high for Republicans. So the podcast explores the messaging around crime and how there is a narrative being pushed by all media that isn't backed by the numbers. All corporate media is reporting this out as a rise in crime when the evidence for it isn't there and that can effect even the anecdotal evidence provided by LEOs such as SSF because of how pervasive the messaging is in society.

This is why we have to rely on data and why we need to push for accurate reporting. I am a strong proponent of mixed-method research, but you cannot rely on anecdotes alone for this sort of thing. It is just not reliable and is too vulnerable to manipulation.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2023, 01:24 AM)hollodero Wrote: First, full disclaimer, I will indeed not listen to the podcast. Sorry.
What i felt like adding anyways - imho, this whole relying on statistics to prove a point is a flawed approach. Crime rates can fall and rise for several reasons and by several measures, it really does not prove conclusively whether any administration does good on crime or not. Each interested party will interpret the data as they please.

First off, thank you.  I appreciate your position and willingness to grant me what we grant to other experts in their field, such as Stewy.

Quote:On the other hand, there is an actual cop in California giving anecdotal evidence, I am not willing to just dismiss that so easily as meaningless. Think of the poster what you please, but I for one do not consider him one to exaggerate or lie about personal experiences just to underline an initial point, like a blind partisan maybe would. So, there's probably something to it at least. In the end though, it's not even necessary to just rely on his words alone. They actually are echoed plenty. Eg. people in Californian cities actually are indeed quite dissatisfied about drime in their state, and that's not on a FOX echo chamber to blame. I feel that's just a blind spot on the liberal side, all too easily dismissed with a crime rate statistic. At the very least, imho there needs to be a far bigger acknowledgement that this is an important issue for quite a lot of people, and not for crazy reasons. You can debate whether shoplifting is up or down all day, it does not change the fact that probably there are problems deserving more attention. If only for tactical reasons. Seems there are plenty of people who think similar to SSF and detest Trump, but just can't stomach lliberal talking points on this issue and hence are not gettable.

Two cents given.

The problem with this is, and I agree with Bel in this regard, is that, by its very nature my personal experience, and that of anyone else is not verifiable nor quantifiable.  Statistics are, and I completely understand Bel's reliance on them.  The problem I have with their use on this issue is that I know, from first hand knowledge that said statistics are being deliberately skewed for political purposes.  Do I know this is happening outside of Los Angeles County in the same way?  No, I cannot verify that with firsthand experience.  But I do know many people in my profession who have shared their firsthand accounts that, while not identical, are similar enough so as to make no difference.  Reliance and hard data is good, but when that data is corrupted, in this case deliberately, it will not give you an accurate picture.  Any conclusions drawn from it will be flawed as they are based on flawed data.  Again, this isn't provable, but that's the exact point.

(12-10-2023, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do not dismiss SSF's statements as meaningless, but anecdotal evidence is unreliable when discussing the facts. The reason for this isn't about exaggerations but because the information is difficult to measure and because it isn't not comprehensive enough. We have one officer telling us things. Maybe he has 100 fellow LEOs around the country or in his department that he interacts with regularly and shares these conversations with. Even 100 is a smaller sample set than what we have with the crime reporting data. Plus, they are basing their anecdotes on their experiences which can be wildly different even in departments based on where their jurisdiction is and their role in the department. Plus, who they speak with is dependent on social circles.

By its very nature, anecdotal evidence such as what we are getting from SSF is an unreliable measure for these sorts of things. I am not bashing SSF for this, and I would hope he knows that is the case. I approach all things in this way. When I speak about what I do I readily acknowledge the limitations of my experiences in my anecdotal evidence.

Now, part of what you talk about in your response is something discussed in the podcast. Historically, the issue of crime perception has been partisan. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats see it as more of an issue and vice versa. However, right now it is something like 93% of Republicans and also 58% of Democrats. Even when a Republican is in the White House the Democrat numbers aren't typically that high and it never gets that high for Republicans. So the podcast explores the messaging around crime and how there is a narrative being pushed by all media that isn't backed by the numbers. All corporate media is reporting this out as a rise in crime when the evidence for it isn't there and that can effect even the anecdotal evidence provided by LEOs such as SSF because of how pervasive the messaging is in society.

This is why we have to rely on data and why we need to push for accurate reporting. I am a strong proponent of mixed-method research, but you cannot rely on anecdotes alone for this sort of thing. It is just not reliable and is too vulnerable to manipulation.

Yes, I completely understand all of that and I can't disagree.  Also, no, I have never taken your position personally, and never have in our close to twenty years of discussing topics like this.  I detailed my issues with reliance on this data above, while simultaneously acknowledging that using anything other than hard data is poor analysis at best.  Sadly, this is understood and exploited by many in power to hide the failures of their policy changes.

You are correct that crime was/is often a useful blunt instrument for the GOP.  But this is a case of the boy who cried wolf actually seeing a wolf.  Even the hard data showed a upswing that could not be solely laid at the feet of the pandemic.  Certain areas, such as Portland, enacted such severe policies that even data obfuscation (i.e. lying) cannot cover it up.  Other areas, such as Los Angeles, are more able to do so.

I would close with a little opportunity for anyone reading this to enact their own study.  When you go to the store, are there products under lock and key?  Where they under lock and key five years ago?  Retailers don't want things under lock and key, it slows down business and dissuades customers.  If they are locking up merchandise it's because the shrinkage from not doing so far outweighs the negatives of locking up merchandise.  Go into your average CVS in Los Angeles and a large percentage of products are locked up.  Hell, even at my CVS in Tustin there are products, such as deodorant, behind glass.  While certainly this is not hard data it is everyday proof that the numbers on property crime are not accurately conveying the true scale and impact of property crime on our society.

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2023, 12:43 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would close with a little opportunity for anyone reading this to enact their own study.  When you go to the store, are there products under lock and key?  Where they under lock and key five years ago?  Retailers don't want things under lock and key, it slows down business and dissuades customers.  If they are locking up merchandise it's because the shrinkage from not doing so far outweighs the negatives of locking up merchandise.  Go into your average CVS in Los Angeles and a large percentage of products are locked up.  Hell, even at my CVS in Tustin there are products, such as deodorant, behind glass.  While certainly this is not hard data it is everyday proof that the numbers on property crime are not accurately conveying the true scale and impact of property crime on our society.

It's funny you bring up CVS specifically. It is their head of loss prevention company-wide that is one of the main figures in the misinformation on this topic.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-10-2023, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It's funny you bring up CVS specifically. It is their head of loss prevention company-wide that is one of the main figures in the misinformation on this topic.

Very interesting.  To what end?  As I said, locking up product affects sales.  You wouldn't do it unless not doing cost you more money.  

[Belsnickel]

(12-10-2023, 02:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very interesting.  To what end?  As I said, locking up product affects sales.  You wouldn't do it unless not doing cost you more money.  

He has been the one making the media rounds and spoke in front of a House committee on the topic as the head of the Coalition of Law Enforcement and Retail (CLEAR). He claims his numbers regarding shrinkage due to "organized retail crime" (ORC) comes from the National Retail Federation (NRF). The problem is that those numbers are from 2016 and are discussing overall shrinkage and when the NRF was asked about their claim on ORC they said their numbers came from CLEAR. So there is this circular logic involved that doesn't jive.

The folks on the podcast discuss this in detail and they focus on another thing in the numbers. Apparently, while the overall dollar figure of shrinkage due to theft has increased, the percentage has remained stable. The increase in loss is attributable more to the rising cost of inventory than it is to any increase in theft. This is all based on reporting from the retailers themselves who actually have more of an incentive to report these sorts of things to push policy efforts.

[*Nately120*]

(12-10-2023, 02:18 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Very interesting.  To what end?  As I said, locking up product affects sales.  You wouldn't do it unless not doing cost you more money.  

A buddy of mine's parents own a news depot and lottery ticket and tobacco store in smalltown PA and they sold the business in 2004 or so, mostly because so many customers and employees were stealing cigarettes.  People stealing stuff is a huge pain in the ass.  This may be a more mainstream thing now, but my whole life I've had family who live in a part of town that is so run down and miserable that people just walk off with anything that isn't nailed down.

[Dill]

(12-10-2023, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do not dismiss SSF's statements as meaningless, but anecdotal evidence is unreliable when discussing the facts. The reason for this isn't about exaggerations but because the information is difficult to measure and because it isn't not comprehensive enough. We have one officer telling us things. Maybe he has 100 fellow LEOs around the country or in his department that he interacts with regularly and shares these conversations with. Even 100 is a smaller sample set than what we have with the crime reporting data. Plus, they are basing their anecdotes on their experiences which can be wildly different even in departments based on where their jurisdiction is and their role in the department. Plus, who they speak with is dependent on social circles.
By its very nature, anecdotal evidence such as what we are getting from SSF is an unreliable measure for these sorts of things. I am not bashing SSF for this, and I would hope he knows that is the case. I approach all things in this way. When I speak about what I do I readily acknowledge the limitations of my experiences in my anecdotal evidence.
Now, part of what you talk about in your response is something discussed in the podcast. Historically, the issue of crime perception has been partisan. When a Republican is in the White House, Democrats see it as more of an issue and vice versa. However, right now it is something like 93% of Republicans and also 58% of Democrats. Even when a Republican is in the White House the Democrat numbers aren't typically that high and it never gets that high for Republicans. So the podcast explores the messaging around crime and how there is a narrative being pushed by all media that isn't backed by the numbers. All corporate media is reporting this out as a rise in crime when the evidence for it isn't there and that can effect even the anecdotal evidence provided by LEOs such as SSF because of how pervasive the messaging is in society.

This is why we have to rely on data and why we need to push for accurate reporting. I am a strong proponent of mixed-method research, but you cannot rely on anecdotes alone for this sort of thing. It is just not reliable and is too vulnerable to manipulation.

Very well said. This convinced me to listen to the first two podcasts. I'm always intrigued when perceptions and social measurement diverge.

"Lawmakers Pass Harsher Penalties for Shoplifting" reminds me of a 1978 book by Stuart Hall and four other members of the Birmingham Center for Cultural Studies--Policing the Crisis. It tracked how, in the late 60s and early 70s, British newspapers began hyper-reporting on a new style crime imported from the US called "mugging," which led to police crackdowns and passing harsher penalties for robberies, and longer sentences --especially if the perps were brown immigrants. But "mugging" was no different than the ordinary street robbery that already existed in Britain, and which had actually NOT increased since the late 60s, etc.  

Regarding the discussion to this point, I would just add that we should not view reliance on data and personal experience as an either/or. Both can be used together to assess complex social trends, complementing and checking each other, when the limitations of each are accurately taken into account, as you do here. I think the mixture is important when we are trying to understand causes, but you are quite correct that anecdotes are no reliable measure of whether crime is trending up or down

It used to be very important to understand how data can be accurate AND manipulated, how preliminary definitions, method and researcher bias can affect/determine collection and assessment, how organizations (public and private) use PR techniques to shape public response to it, the political economy of mass communication, etc.

Since the 17th century mass media have occasionally driven moral panics, but now we now live in a media environment which can shape and manage perception of social trends to such degree that distortion seems routine and permanent, and from more oblique and unsuspected angles, than at any time in previous history. So we still need all the critical tools previously developed for social measurement--plus some means of factoring in the effects of this new and probably permanent condition.  I think the OM podcasts identify and raise awareness of that problem. Expanding critical media literacy in public education might be a partial solution, slowing this trend somewhat--but how to implement it, and who would get to? Seems there would be lots of pushback against it. For now, Podcasts seem to be taking the lead. . . .

[grampahol]

Comparatively speaking crime rates are much lower than they were before gasoline had lead in it.. 
If you were to follow the feeds in suburban areas on the Nextdoor app you'd likely think you'd have to climb over the piles of dead bodies just to go to the grocery store and everyone under the age of 40 was a wanton killer and if there's one thing everyone should know is that just about anything can be made into a crime if legislative bodies decide to outlaw them and the other way around. I remember when marijuana possession was definitely a crime anywhere in the United States and technically still is. Crime laws change over time all the time. ie: guns, abortion, driving over 55 mph, prohibition and on and on.  Just about any political party in power, state, federal and local can skew crime statistics on a whim by simply changing laws to suit their agendas..  

[Dill]

(12-11-2023, 08:16 PM)grampahol Wrote: Comparatively speaking crime rates are much lower than they were before gasoline had lead in it.. 
If you were to follow the feeds in suburban areas on the Nextdoor app you'd likely think you'd have to climb over the piles of dead bodies just to go to the grocery store and everyone under the age of 40 was a wanton killer and if there's one thing everyone should know is that just about anything can be made into a crime if legislative bodies decide to outlaw them and the other way around. I remember when marijuana possession was definitely a crime anywhere in the United States and technically still is. Crime laws change over time all the time. ie: guns, abortion, driving over 55 mph, prohibition and on and on.  Just about any political party in power, state, federal and local can skew crime statistics on a whim by simply changing laws to suit their agendas..  

The other thing to remember, though, is that if, say, the powers that be reduce the speed limit to 55 everywhere, that will likely result in stats showing an "increase in speeding violations" compared to the previous year for sure. But I don't think that is skewing statistics, even if I dislike the law.

If intentional homicide is "definitely a crime," it is possible that its occurrence may actually increase or decrease in different regions as social conditions change. E.g. Were a region to become quickly economically depressed, subject to an influx of immigrants looking for employment, and a market for lethal recreational drugs, homicide incidence might actually rise, however it is defined, and granting that tweaking definitions might raise or lower the count somewhat.  If "mass shooting" incidents are defined by a body count of four, that definition will produce more mass shootings over a year than a definition which requires a body count of six.  But the actual number of homicides will be the same regardless of that definition; those in power can't simply "skew" such basic stats on a whim. 

They can skew perceptions though. And how that is accomplished should be the focus of critical literacy.  Citizens ought to be concerned with understanding how stats are collected and framed, without assuming stats are inherently unreliable, meaningless or, as Twain put, a step worse than "damned lies." (Not that you were doing that, Gramps. I'm just using your observations as a springboard for these points.)

[hollodero]

(12-10-2023, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I do not dismiss SSF's statements as meaningless, but anecdotal evidence is unreliable when discussing the facts. The reason for this isn't about exaggerations but because the information is difficult to measure and because it isn't not comprehensive enough. We have one officer telling us things. Maybe he has 100 fellow LEOs around the country or in his department that he interacts with regularly and shares these conversations with. Even 100 is a smaller sample set than what we have with the crime reporting data. Plus, they are basing their anecdotes on their experiences which can be wildly different even in departments based on where their jurisdiction is and their role in the department. Plus, who they speak with is dependent on social circles.

By its very nature, anecdotal evidence such as what we are getting from SSF is an unreliable measure for these sorts of things.

To clarify, I do not disagree in the slightest with any of this. Anecdotal evidence is indeed skewed by its nature, I never said or implied it should be taken as a matter of fact and fully relied upon. Imho, there is a fine line between seeing it as unreliable and just completely dismissing it out of hand. To me it's similar to when patty talks about teaching, or when you talk about your experiences and what you learned from them. These stories can't tell me the undisputable truth, but it sure can alter my perspective when people actually confronting certain things share these things they experience. Especially when these depictions are not on an island, like in this case. SSF is far far from alone with his assessment, it is a perception of reality many people share, of which many people would possibly be gettable for the next election were so many liberals not so overly dismissive and stubbornly insisting that only their official crime statistic tells the true tale of liberals doing pretty well on that front.

Now when it comes to anecdotes vs. facts, I am certainly siding with the facts. The problem though is that facts are hard to come by, you usually get a certain interpretation served by certain interest groups. A crime rate statistic, per se, is or at least can be unreliable and not fully factual too. One example I know quite well from my country is unemployment, it is too high? Well, let's puts some people on a pointless one-day training and count them out of the official statistic for the year. Oh look, now unemployment's down, let's reelect our fine leaders! And crime statistics possibly do the same thing - eg. if it's true that juvenile crime does not get reported anymore like SSF alleges (I did not check), it's no wonder the crime rate is down, doesn't mean there's actually less crime.

PS I will now listen to the podcast later that evening. It would be impolite not to do so while giving multiple answers.

[The D.O.Z.]

Nice n peaceful out here in rural areas. The only gunshots I hear out here are meant for deer, rabbits, coyotes, and trespassers. Mom & Pop stores are left unrobbed because Mom & Pop have a shotgun handy somewhere close by.

But every day I turn on the news for my background noise while making and eating dinner, there's another shooting (or 3). Another child murderer. Another chomo "in court today". Another home invasion where elderly are victimized. It's disgusting. And it's become the norm. And THAT'S sickening in itself.

[JustWinBaby]

I understand this varies by area, but living in downtown Chicago for the past decade plus I'll say it has gotten noticeably worse around me.

Two stores nearby have closed because of petty shop lifting (seen it myself there, in broad daylight). There have been half a dozen car jackings the last few years right around me. And last year someone got shot in a mugging down the street (appeared to be unintentional, to the extent that applies to a robbery at gunpoint). I don't necessarily associate any of that with a change in laws or prosecution, but the increase in crime is definitely real.

Anecdotal, sure. And the shootings Fox talks about every night and week have been what they are. But there has definitely been an increase in crime, and a decrease in safety, regardless of the Fox hyperbole.