Just had to share this one.

I ride a trail that gets me 12.5 miles of "No Motor Vehicle" commuting in the morning. Don't travel it at night for fear of crime as it passes through a pretty tough area and the police say that there are numerous muggings for bicycles, especially nice ones.

Stopped at a local bike shop to pick up something and asked the three young wrenches:

"Do you know anything about the _ _ _ _ Trail?

Two of them looked at the youngest one and said: "He does."

So, I asked what the scoop was.

He stated: "Why there isn't any crime on that trail. There was only one murder near the golf course a couple months ago, but it wasn't crime - it was Gang related."

My response: "Whew, that's good to know. Was the person shot, stabbed or beat to death?"

Response: "Oh, they were shot. Like I said, it wasn't crime it was gang related."

I feel so much safer now!

Good stuff!!

Thanks for sharing.

Hmmm. Maybe the cops shot a gang member to death therefore meaning it wasn't a crime? And maybe the kid didn't know the proper use of the word "murder"?

I dunno, that's a lot of assuming, but it's all I got on this one.

If an animal kills another animal is it a crime?

No, it's called nature.

Only if Jesse and Al say so

Aaron

Oh, I forgot. Unless they are gang members. Then its' lunch or dinner.

Murder is a crime of course, but even I got the gist of what this wrench was saying.

What he meant was the murder was personal....and thus not statistically a risk to you passing through the area. Random acts of violence or armed robberies in the area should worry you. One thug killing another over a personal dispute should not place you in much danger.

Unless you witness it. In which case you win in the contest for most interesting commute. :-)

Yeah, I know what they meant, but I also know that it means that violent gangs are active in the area.

A few years ago in Dorchester 6 year old girl got shot in the spine while one thug attempted to kill another. She's paralyzed.

I agree with DoB. I think what the wrench meant was that statistically (number of shootings per capita for example) the area may seem bad, but if you consider the data you may conclude that the risk is not as high for you personally as it looks on the face of it.

The reality may be that most of the crimes committed in the area are drug deals gone bad, gang on gang, domestic violence, etc. So one could say that if you are in the area but not doing things you shouldn't do (being in a gang, in a situation with domestic conflict, trying to sell or buy drugs, drunk, etc.), your chances of being caught up in a crime are much lower. I'm not saying there isn't the risk of your being innocently caught up in one of these crimes (for example, mugged by a druggie for your money), but overall your risk is not as high as a simple reading of the statistics would indicate.

Off topic: I read an interesting article where an author had an unscientific study. He compared the increased risk of dying or being injured from crime in the inner city (larger cities) to the increased risk of death or injury from a car accident when living out in the suburbs or farther and having long commutes into work. It is known that people living in inner cities drive less miles on average than those that live in more far-flung locations.

His unscientific conclusion was that the risk to life or limb was about a wash between the risk of crime in the inner city and the greater risk of a car accident when commuting/driving more miles while living farther out. I.e., - the tendency of suburbanites to think that living in the city is a higher risk than where they live may be false conclusion on their part. Full disclosure, I live in the inner city.

All this being said, it is wise to be discerning in rough neighborhoods and take some sensible precautions.

the faster all the gangs kill each other, the better. Get em out of the dam gene pool.

funny though, when i first read the thread title, i thought the OP would be referring to how many of us commuters commit "crimes" by failing to obey the letter of the traffic laws.

I figure i commit around 25 "crimes" a day if you count it that way

cheers

Does anyone really think druggies and gang bangers are just going after each other and too busy for anyone else? These aren't generally folks with much consideration for others' safety or property.

And gangs "killing each other" doesn't get them out of the gene pool so much as it keeps them killing each other and screwing up life for everyone. Call me crazy, but I think it might help a bit if they stopped killing each other. And is "dam" gene "pool" a pun?

I think it calms people's fears somewhat when a violent act is determined to be gang related. Nevertheless, gang membership and behavior have nothing to with "bad genes" IMHO. As long the conditions exist that lead to the existence of gangs, gangs will exist.

Last fall a white guy who was cycling to his friend's house at about 10 pm never got there. It was a routine trip he made all the time. He was found the next morning nearly dead and eventually did die. He had been severely beaten. Fears were heightened. It was a huge story, and the search for his killer(s) was given to the top local detective.

Eventually one of the people involved (not the killer) confessed and fingered the guy who had clubbed him to death. The police claim the cyclist approached the guys to inquire about buying drugs. The guys beat him and took the $40 he was carrying.

The family cried foul saying that while the cyclist years ago had drug a problem he had been clean for a long time and was now a typical family man in his 40's. The family said the police were publicly smearing the cyclist because the incident had damaged the image of the city and the police.

Anyway, it's an interesting peak into our society. I seriously doubt the case of one gang member killing another would be given to the top local detective or that it would have been in the news for days on end. The guy who confessed did so because he felt that because it was white middle class guy that was killed the killers would be pursued relentlessly and he didn't want the crime pinned on him.

A huge debate raged over whether or not the cyclist was in fact engaging in risky behavior or was just a random target. Also debated was whether it was appropriate or not to taint the memory of guy who'd just been killed in order to salvage the image of the city/neighborhood/police.

Maybe it was just what parents told their kids or TV shows but I always wasy told gangs initiated new members by the new chap causing harm on an innnocent or other random acts of violence/damage. It makes me glad I get a lock my bicycle up two stories underground in a secure garage, although getting up/down there is a constant adventure with the bumps/claws and cars screaching about.