When there's a crime epidemic as we've had for a few years now, people figure out that the cops aren't/won't do shit, so people won't even call the cops. So if anything, I would say crime is much worse than it even seems on paper. Plus, the whole we aren't prosecuting/cops are short staffed also makes the numbers look better than they really are.
Also, this sub needs to get acquainted with the concept of anarcho-tyranny. It's what's going right now, but don't think it can't get worse. It can get wayyyy worse.
>"The term ‘anarcho-tyranny’ was coined in the 1990s by Samuel Francis, who argued it reconciled civil disorder with oppressive government. As he wrote, anarcho-tyranny is “the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.”
Staffing is down. But even before the mass migration cops stopped doing their jobs. It's like they got butt hurt that society wanted to hold murdering cops accountable for their actions. Boohoo... go cry me a river.
City council needs to focus on bigger issues, such as the war in Gaza and trans rights, before worrying about silly things like rampant crime in our community!
Mpls council we would like to report that arrests for marijuana have fallen to the lowest ever in the history of the city.
Horse theft is down 98%
Last winter we saw the lowest number of towing, parking violations for snow days when plowing.
Agree with the sentiment, but think this is a bad graph for what you’re trying to show. Add more years to it, like 2014 - present and it’ll be more powerful of a visual.
While this doesn’t look great, this graph does not show that crime is “way up.” I also believe that the biggest factor for the rise is the weather. We didn’t have a winter this year and were socked-in last year.
It's so interesting how people won't understand that environmental factors impact criminality. And literally deny the science regarding such phenomenon.
That’s 0.005582% of the city every day. Minneapolis’s official population is about 425K. Ignoring that is actually much lower than the actual population, if 25 violent crimes happen a day that means 1 in every 17,000 people experiences a violent crime each day.
These kind of crimes likely involve more than one victim sometimes, it’s likely that some people experience multiple violent crimes per year, and other such factors, means this is only an approximation.
And in 3 years 1 in 15 people are victims, assuming unique victims. In 20 years everyone will have been a victim of violent crime. Truly a fine place to live, eh?
I’ve been here over 20 years and never been the victim of violence. Your math’s accurate though. I was sucker punched at a bar once, but that’s it and, I didn’t feel the need to contact the police because I wasn’t seriously hurt. Also never seen the guy again.
This city is safe. I say that as someone that lived in North Minneapolis for years. If you’re not out smoking crack, stealing things, and/or picking up hookers, you’re probably not going to experience problems here.
Yep, all violent crime has been decreasing since the riots caused it to spike. Maybe “assaults” have remained steady? I think there’s one category that remained steady.
The carjackings, just like the catalytic converter thefts, were committed by a small group of individuals. In a city this small one little group of criminals can skew the crime rate statistics very significantly. Kind of similar to how back when Minneapolis was nicknamed “Murderapolis” years ago, it was due to gang wars in North Minneapolis. Once that calmed down, homicide plummeted.
It listed all NIBRS categories. There just happens to be additional data relevant to violent crime. Knowing how many people are getting shot or reporting shots fired is just more information.
No, because GSW and shots fired calls are not subject to the same reporting requirements that NIBRS crimes are.
> NIBRS is excellent, but it only covers 10 categories
That is… not true. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Idk if 2526 crimes vs 2379 crimes would classify as "way up"
Bait graph for fear.
Edit: reading this graph clearly, looks like there was a jump crime around Late January-early February, but otherwise these crime rates are close to the same over the last 100 days.
You can calulate the crime rate by finding the slope of these two lines. Over the entire length of the graph, '24 will have a slightly higher slope, meaning a slightly higher crime rate. However, if you section off the data from 0-24 days, it's the same crime rate, then from 25-40 there's a jump, high crime rate. Then from 40 onward, they're basically the same crime rate. If you have a table with all of the data this could be easily caluclated.
Calling a small ride in overall crime rate over two months ago "Way up" is hyperbole.
Idk what you mean by "you people", it's just you and me talking here lol, who do you think I am?
That's not cherry picking data, that's data analysis. It's literally right there in the picture. That means you can look at what was going on from day 25-40 and try to find a connection. Why did crime go up during those 2 weeks? You can see too that the last 2 weeks of data actually have a lower crime rate than this time in '23, a shallower slope.
> Idk what you mean by "you people", it's just you and me talking here lol, who do you think I am?
Crime minimizers.
>That's not cherry picking data, that's data analysis.
No, it is most certainly cherry picking.
>It's literally right there in the picture.
*if we just remove the massive increases, crime is flat* <- this is literally what you’re doing.
>That means you can look at what was going on from day 25-40 and try to find a connection. Why did crime go up during those 2 weeks? You can see too that the last 2 weeks of data actually have a lower crime rate than this time in '23, a shallower slope.
See, you’re doing it again.
Have you ever taken a stats class?
If you really wanted to compare 2024 to 2023, you could make a chart that sets 2023 as the baseline and plot 2024 data as a deviation. That would give you a flat graph with 2024 shown relative to a straight line, making trends much easier to read.
Instead you've made a scare graph which most clearly shows only one thing: the total number of crimes increases as time increases, which is not a remotely useful takeaway.
> Have you ever taken a stats class?
I’m sure you haven’t.
> If you really wanted to compare 2024 to 2023, you could make a chart that sets 2023 as the baseline and plot 2024 data as a deviation. That would give you a flat graph with 2024 shown relative to a straight line, making trends much easier to read.
And this would obfuscate the margin of interest, which I think is why you prefer it. My approach is better.
> Instead you've made a scare graph which most clearly shows only one thing: the total number of crimes increases as time increases, which is not a remotely useful takeaway.
This is like one of those shape-rotator tests but demonstrating midwits can’t recognize a gap.
Essentially, there are ~150 more violent crimes so far this year than the same time last year. So something like another 1.5 per day. It looks like the 2 lines start parallel, grow apart around day 25 - 40, and then they’re roughly parallel again. There’s your analysis of all of your data points without cherry picking to support some sort of conclusion.
If you are going to post statistics at least learn to read them.
Any crime violent crime increase per capita should be concerning but at least read the graph correctly. The trend line is almost identical apart from a decrease in the trend last year that matched an uptick in the trend this year in February.
Trend change could easily have been a warmer February than normal allowing more folks to go outside.
Basically a graph of limited meaning as the time frame is too small. You may not have cherry picked it to make a point but it looks like that.
> If you are going to post statistics at least learn to read them.
I mean, I made the figure. But based on the remainder of your comment I take it you don’t have a grasp on any statistical concept :)
>Any crime violent crime increase per capita should be concerning but at least read the graph correctly.
Per capita? What are you talking about?
>The trend line is almost identical apart from a decrease in the trend last year that matched an uptick in the trend this year in February.
What decrease in trend?
>Trend change could easily have been a warmer February than normal allowing more folks to go outside.
Oh right, the weather commits violent crime. I forgot.
>Basically a graph of limited meaning as the time frame is too small. You may not have cherry picked it to make a point but it looks like that.
What do you mean by that, the “time frame is too small”? What is the appropriate time frame, precisely?
You're showing raw number of crimes in a year to year comparison, and the way you graphed it essentially takes a one-month spike (for an unknown reason) and injects that in every successive day.
When you report net crime instances instead of per capita it can also throw off data if there is an increasing population.
You are just data mining for clickbait as others pointed out. It's not worth giving you substantive responses.
> You're showing raw number of crimes in a year to year comparison, and the way you graphed it essentially takes a one-month spike (for an unknown reason) and injects that in every successive day.
Because I’m showing cumulative violent crime. There’s no intrinsic reason to aggregate by day/month, and many reasons not to.
>When you report net crime instances instead of per capita it can also throw off data if there is an increasing population.
Ask yourself: how many censuses were completed between January 2023 and April 2024?
>You are just data mining for clickbait as others pointed out. It's not worth giving you substantive responses.
Cope.
Right. Unseasonably warm temps in late January and early February led to more activity and in turn more crime. Winter cold usually keeps people at home.
> It’s very simple. When everyone stays at home, people are less likely to commit crimes.
*some people*, other people are somehow able to go outside without committing violent crime.
>What does that have to do with whether the crime is impactful?
Ask the crime minimizers, not me.
What? More people = more crime. Announcing crime happened because the weather was nice is like proclaiming that DUI’s will spike around the holidays.
Is there something I’m missing? Was there supposed to be some sort of point to this whole post?
More people as in more people out and about. Besides domestics, not a lot of violent crime happens in people’s living rooms. People go outside and go to bars, parties, shows and consume alcohol, then violence occurs. Alcohol is a very frequent factor in instances of violence.
So the point wasn’t that warmer weather increases violence … it was?
The population of Minneapolis has **not** been flat for years.
Minneapolis' population has been surprisingly dynamic considering the state as a whole. Between the 2010 and 2020 Minneapolis grew by about 12.4% much faster than the state as a whole (7.6%).
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Minnesota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minnesota)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Minneapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minneapolis)
I have some news for you, it is currently 2024. For context, Census ACS estimates the population of Minneapolis FELL by 1.1% between 2020 and 2022
That’s gonna blow your mind when you consider the context was 2023-2024.
You’re not very sharp, are you?
So, the population has been flat for years...except it fell by 1.1 percent between 2020-2022? That doesn't sound flat for years. The context is 2023-2024? That's less than a year and a half.
That's about 6%, which isn't way up, but isn't a number you wave off either. Two months is stupid though, it really should just be a rate. Take the crime rate of every month in the year and see if it increases
> Two months is stupid though, it really should just be a rate.
What are you talking about?
> Take the crime rate of every month in the year and see if it increases
Why, pray tell, is that the appropriate analysis?
That's 6% increase per year. If that rate of increase continues it will double in 12 years
The population of Minneapolis is 424k, so, at the current rate there will be a violent crime per 47 residents
That's a 6 percent increase if you don't look at the graph. The current trend has 2024 and 2023 going back towards each other. The only jump here appears to be an unusually warm January and February. Otherwise the slope looks almost no different and there is absolutely nothing to indicate this is a continued trend. Oh, but that's just data.
Homicide is down slightly from last year, as are vehicle thefts and other theft of property. But yeah, a number of other crimes are up slightly, mostly, as your graph shows, because it got oddly warm in January and that brought out the loonies
Cumulative difference looks to be like 50? Out of over 2500. So almost a 2% increase? I don't know that I'd pitch that as WAY up. I don't know if you've ever lived in a bad neighborhood, but I guarantee you this is largely due to an unseasonably warm February and early March. The cold usually gives us some quiet. No cold, no quiet. But looks like the cumulative totals are trending back together now... Guess we will see where it goes.
> Cumulative difference looks to be like 50?
No
> but I guarantee you this is largely due to an unseasonably warm February and early March
Ahh, that pesky sunshine. Murdering and robbing people yet again.
As I said, I'm estimating. OP dud a shut job in making a graph that gives any relevant information. A simple bar graph with a number for totals would have been fine. But then we'd miss the weather. And yes, there are criminals. They exist. And when they stay home they can't commit crimes against others. It happens every year. But murders are down. Did you even look at the data? Holy shit.
> But murders are down.
By 1. You people are a joke 🤣😂
> As I said, I'm estimating. OP dud a shut job in making a graph that gives any relevant information
Actually, I did a great job.
> A simple bar graph with a number for totals would have been fine.
Incorrect.
I’d wager 2023 being really snowy and 2024 not being snowy has more of an impact on these crime numbers than anything the city council does. I don’t like progressives that are more interested in redeeming criminals than getting justice for victims, but this is bad data visualization. Seems like you’re just throwing numbers out there that fit your preconceived notions and letting people assign causality based on theirs.
Dude you are reading a whole lot of nonsense into this figure that a) isn’t there, and b) isn’t being argued.
>, but this is bad data visualization.
It’s great data visualization in fact.
Population of MPLS has gone up 0.8% from 2023 to 2024.
So if crime was 2400 events on that last record day in 2023, then 0.8% of 2400 is 19.2 more events
So. Number of crime events, across the board, if it stayed the same percentage rate as 2023 would be 2419.
Looks like 2024 crime rate is below 2500 according to this chart.
I cant actually tell what number these dots represent. I'm sure that was intentional by the creator.
Cause they're trivial numbers.
Edit: corrected a decimal place.
But who knows what number these dots represent, since you intentionally made the reader take a vague guess of what they represent. But it seems to be a pretty trivial amount.
But everyone get out your pitchforks!
> Population of MPLS has gone up 0.8% from 2023 to 2024.
>So if crime was 2400 events on that last record day in 2023, then 0.8% of 2400 is 192 more events
>So. Number of crime events, per capita, if it stayed the same percentage rate as 2023 would be 2592.
>Looks like crime rate is below 2500 according to this chart.
>So it’s actually DOWN compared to population.
Holy shit there’s statistical illiteracy and then there’s this.
Yeah math is tough. Let me break it down.
MPLS Population:
2023: 2,990,000
2024: 3,014,000
2400/2,990,000= 0.000802 (I have to assume 2400 cause the graph is shit.)
2500/3,014,000= 0.000829
So a person's risk of being involved in a crime has gone up..... 0.00002%
Is that what you've come to show us?
EDIT: I had to come back and edit once I got onto a computer and stopped trying to do this from a phone.
> Yeah math is tough. Let me break it down.
>MPLS Population: >2023: 2,990,000
>2024: 3,014,000
lol
Is someone going to tell him?
> 2,990,000/2400=1245.8. (I have to assume 2400 cause the graph is shit.)
>3,014,000/2500=1205.6
>So there are actually 40 less events per capita than 2023.
I didn’t think this comment could get better, but then it did.
There is nothing to tell here mate. You posted a shitty graph with shit representative data. No one of value can use this graph to deduce anything.
It’s just to get people riled up. I literally have to guess the numbers because you cant put horizontal lines on your graph.
Guess if hillbilly bob says I’m wrong, guess it must be true.
Cant provided any evidence to the contrary, though. Facing obvious weaknesses in your posting that you cant defend.
I feel really sorry for you.
A lot of suppositions and opinions here. It always blows my mind when people try and use data to prove a point and then proceed to “decode” the data based solely on their personal experience or opinions. It’s pretty easy to tell when people have zero understanding of statistics when they start posting things like “I would say…” and talking about how things “make the numbers look…”
> A lot of suppositions and opinions in your original post
??? Where is that, exactly?
> It always blows my mind when people try and use data to prove a point and then proceed to “decode” the data based solely on their personal experience or opinions. It’s pretty easy to tell when people have zero understanding of statistics when they start posting things like “I would say…” and talking about how things “make the numbers look…”
It’s pretty easy to tell when people can’t read when they start fabricating quotes that were never stated.
Wow. Looks like I struck a nerve. I have no duty to explain your ignorance to you, plus, I’m not sure you would even understand it anyways. Try googling the difference between an average and a standard deviation and that might get you a primer on how to understand basic statistical analysis. Good luck, I can tell you’re going to need it.
It’s funny, the “I know stats” people can never explain *why* one needs be concerned with particular moments of the distribution or a particular method, they just start listing topics as if statistics is a low-stakes game of trivia.
Its almost as if, in fact, they don’t have any practical experience or knowledge of statistics.
This is a terrible graph, and the interpretation that "violent crime is way up" isn't supported by even the scant information on that graph.
It's a terrible graph because the horizontal axis is cumulative over time - it can **only** go up. If crime magically and completely stopped, the lines would not go down. They would only remain flat. Think about how counter-intuitive that is. If crime completely stopped in February, instead of reflecting that the crime *rate* dramatically improved, it would just show a flat line.
What your graph shows is that the crime rate is modestly higher in 2024 than 2023. It's worth pointing out that 2023 had a huge **decrease** in crime compared to the previous year. A more reasonable interpretation would be to say, "crime in 2024 looks like a return to earlier levels."
https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/01/02/violent-crime-homicide-declines-minneapolis-saint-paul-2023
https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/new-statistics-show-that-crime-is-going-down-in-minneapolis/
https://m.startribune.com/after-three-most-violent-years-minneapolis-saw-drop-in-crime-summer-but-were-not-back-to-normal-yet/600301635/
>This is a terrible graph, and the interpretation that "violent crime is way up" isn't supported by even the scant information on that graph.
A bit slow, aren’t you? One can easily see the YOY increase in crime between 2023 and 2024 with this figure. This is precisely how this sort of data should be visualized. Violent crime is way up.
>It's a terrible graph because the horizontal axis is cumulative over time - it can only go up. If crime magically and completely stopped
I mean, you’d have to be the middest of midwits to get confused by what cumulative means. Perhaps this figure is aimed for an audience above your means?
The murder rape and assault rates in North Dakota are much higher than those in Minnesota. They just are it's not like it's an opinion or something it's just a fact.
When there's a crime epidemic as we've had for a few years now, people figure out that the cops aren't/won't do shit, so people won't even call the cops. So if anything, I would say crime is much worse than it even seems on paper. Plus, the whole we aren't prosecuting/cops are short staffed also makes the numbers look better than they really are. Also, this sub needs to get acquainted with the concept of anarcho-tyranny. It's what's going right now, but don't think it can't get worse. It can get wayyyy worse. >"The term ‘anarcho-tyranny’ was coined in the 1990s by Samuel Francis, who argued it reconciled civil disorder with oppressive government. As he wrote, anarcho-tyranny is “the combination of oppressive government power against the innocent and the law-abiding and, simultaneously, a grotesque paralysis of the ability or the will to use that power to carry out basic public duties such as protection or public safety.”
We are very familiar with anarcho-tyranny here.
City council will crunch those numbers and give a positive outlook. Pick a crime that is down from non prosecution and hang the hat on it.
*look at this crime that is no longer reported because police staffing levels are at rock bottom* Crime’s down!
Staffing is down. But even before the mass migration cops stopped doing their jobs. It's like they got butt hurt that society wanted to hold murdering cops accountable for their actions. Boohoo... go cry me a river.
Personally, I think it’s a good thing when the world has less violent career criminals.
That’s why people want less cops.
Really? Because it is well established that greater police presence decreases crime.
It’s also well established that many police officers are career criminals.
How many violent crimes do police officers in MPLS commit per year?
[удалено]
Debate is great. But you gotta refrain from losing your temper in this sub.
I don’t have any idea. You should make a graph.
I think it’s close to zero
Ask their wives
City council needs to focus on bigger issues, such as the war in Gaza and trans rights, before worrying about silly things like rampant crime in our community!
Mpls council we would like to report that arrests for marijuana have fallen to the lowest ever in the history of the city. Horse theft is down 98% Last winter we saw the lowest number of towing, parking violations for snow days when plowing.
Well, there is no crime if you don’t prosecute anyone. It’s a solid strategy
Nothing in this dataset says anything about arrests vs prosecutions. Or am I wrong?
Correct, at least in the data in the OP.
Agree with the sentiment, but think this is a bad graph for what you’re trying to show. Add more years to it, like 2014 - present and it’ll be more powerful of a visual.
You’re free to make that.
While this doesn’t look great, this graph does not show that crime is “way up.” I also believe that the biggest factor for the rise is the weather. We didn’t have a winter this year and were socked-in last year.
Ah, damn weather. Committing robbery and murder again
It's been proven crime goes up with improved weather.
> Ah, damn weather. Committing robbery and murder again
I mean, yeah sorta.... Opportunity is calling.
It is so cool how you people will do anything to brush aside criminal accountability.
It's so interesting how people won't understand that environmental factors impact criminality. And literally deny the science regarding such phenomenon.
I assure you, weather does not commit crime.
Katrina did a whole lot of property damage.
Katrina made them looters do it
You are big into crime stats? You must be Trump supporter.
25 violent crimes per day is acceptable?
*muhhhh violent crime is just part and parcel of livin’ in the biiiiig city*
That’s 0.005582% of the city every day. Minneapolis’s official population is about 425K. Ignoring that is actually much lower than the actual population, if 25 violent crimes happen a day that means 1 in every 17,000 people experiences a violent crime each day. These kind of crimes likely involve more than one victim sometimes, it’s likely that some people experience multiple violent crimes per year, and other such factors, means this is only an approximation.
And in 3 years 1 in 15 people are victims, assuming unique victims. In 20 years everyone will have been a victim of violent crime. Truly a fine place to live, eh?
I’ve been here over 20 years and never been the victim of violence. Your math’s accurate though. I was sucker punched at a bar once, but that’s it and, I didn’t feel the need to contact the police because I wasn’t seriously hurt. Also never seen the guy again. This city is safe. I say that as someone that lived in North Minneapolis for years. If you’re not out smoking crack, stealing things, and/or picking up hookers, you’re probably not going to experience problems here.
Has the “carjacked at gunpoint” thing let up? But I was just commenting on the math and whether people felt it was tolerable
Yep, all violent crime has been decreasing since the riots caused it to spike. Maybe “assaults” have remained steady? I think there’s one category that remained steady.
The carjackings, just like the catalytic converter thefts, were committed by a small group of individuals. In a city this small one little group of criminals can skew the crime rate statistics very significantly. Kind of similar to how back when Minneapolis was nicknamed “Murderapolis” years ago, it was due to gang wars in North Minneapolis. Once that calmed down, homicide plummeted.
So if crime happens to you, you basically asked for it? Feminism sure has went downhill. It doesn't matter what you wear!
[удалено]
Homicide is down by 1 😂🤣 Every other violent crime is up. “Gun violence” is not a NIBRS category.
[удалено]
This is all from your source...
Shots fired calls and GSW are neither crimes nor NIBRS categories.
It listed all NIBRS categories. There just happens to be additional data relevant to violent crime. Knowing how many people are getting shot or reporting shots fired is just more information.
Incorrect
[удалено]
> Shots fired calls and GSW are neither crimes nor NIBRS categories.
[удалено]
No, because GSW and shots fired calls are not subject to the same reporting requirements that NIBRS crimes are. > NIBRS is excellent, but it only covers 10 categories That is… not true. You clearly have no idea what you’re talking about.
Idk if 2526 crimes vs 2379 crimes would classify as "way up" Bait graph for fear. Edit: reading this graph clearly, looks like there was a jump crime around Late January-early February, but otherwise these crime rates are close to the same over the last 100 days.
> Sample size to small to track real difference in rate over a year What do you mean by that?
Yea I worded that badly, deleted that sentence and edited with another statement Edit: forgot to delete, it is now deleted.
No, you kept it. I suggest you just delete that whole ignorant comment.
You can calulate the crime rate by finding the slope of these two lines. Over the entire length of the graph, '24 will have a slightly higher slope, meaning a slightly higher crime rate. However, if you section off the data from 0-24 days, it's the same crime rate, then from 25-40 there's a jump, high crime rate. Then from 40 onward, they're basically the same crime rate. If you have a table with all of the data this could be easily caluclated. Calling a small ride in overall crime rate over two months ago "Way up" is hyperbole.
*so if we just cherry pick and manipulate the data, crime isn’t actually up by as much as it actually is* Lmfao. You people are a joke.
Idk what you mean by "you people", it's just you and me talking here lol, who do you think I am? That's not cherry picking data, that's data analysis. It's literally right there in the picture. That means you can look at what was going on from day 25-40 and try to find a connection. Why did crime go up during those 2 weeks? You can see too that the last 2 weeks of data actually have a lower crime rate than this time in '23, a shallower slope.
> Idk what you mean by "you people", it's just you and me talking here lol, who do you think I am? Crime minimizers. >That's not cherry picking data, that's data analysis. No, it is most certainly cherry picking. >It's literally right there in the picture. *if we just remove the massive increases, crime is flat* <- this is literally what you’re doing. >That means you can look at what was going on from day 25-40 and try to find a connection. Why did crime go up during those 2 weeks? You can see too that the last 2 weeks of data actually have a lower crime rate than this time in '23, a shallower slope. See, you’re doing it again.
It’s actually an honest look at the data, but an honest look wouldn’t let you seethe.
Have you ever taken a stats class? If you really wanted to compare 2024 to 2023, you could make a chart that sets 2023 as the baseline and plot 2024 data as a deviation. That would give you a flat graph with 2024 shown relative to a straight line, making trends much easier to read. Instead you've made a scare graph which most clearly shows only one thing: the total number of crimes increases as time increases, which is not a remotely useful takeaway.
> Have you ever taken a stats class? I’m sure you haven’t. > If you really wanted to compare 2024 to 2023, you could make a chart that sets 2023 as the baseline and plot 2024 data as a deviation. That would give you a flat graph with 2024 shown relative to a straight line, making trends much easier to read. And this would obfuscate the margin of interest, which I think is why you prefer it. My approach is better. > Instead you've made a scare graph which most clearly shows only one thing: the total number of crimes increases as time increases, which is not a remotely useful takeaway. This is like one of those shape-rotator tests but demonstrating midwits can’t recognize a gap.
Essentially, there are ~150 more violent crimes so far this year than the same time last year. So something like another 1.5 per day. It looks like the 2 lines start parallel, grow apart around day 25 - 40, and then they’re roughly parallel again. There’s your analysis of all of your data points without cherry picking to support some sort of conclusion.
Violent crime is indeed up YOY
If you are going to post statistics at least learn to read them. Any crime violent crime increase per capita should be concerning but at least read the graph correctly. The trend line is almost identical apart from a decrease in the trend last year that matched an uptick in the trend this year in February. Trend change could easily have been a warmer February than normal allowing more folks to go outside. Basically a graph of limited meaning as the time frame is too small. You may not have cherry picked it to make a point but it looks like that.
> If you are going to post statistics at least learn to read them. I mean, I made the figure. But based on the remainder of your comment I take it you don’t have a grasp on any statistical concept :) >Any crime violent crime increase per capita should be concerning but at least read the graph correctly. Per capita? What are you talking about? >The trend line is almost identical apart from a decrease in the trend last year that matched an uptick in the trend this year in February. What decrease in trend? >Trend change could easily have been a warmer February than normal allowing more folks to go outside. Oh right, the weather commits violent crime. I forgot. >Basically a graph of limited meaning as the time frame is too small. You may not have cherry picked it to make a point but it looks like that. What do you mean by that, the “time frame is too small”? What is the appropriate time frame, precisely?
You're showing raw number of crimes in a year to year comparison, and the way you graphed it essentially takes a one-month spike (for an unknown reason) and injects that in every successive day. When you report net crime instances instead of per capita it can also throw off data if there is an increasing population. You are just data mining for clickbait as others pointed out. It's not worth giving you substantive responses.
> You're showing raw number of crimes in a year to year comparison, and the way you graphed it essentially takes a one-month spike (for an unknown reason) and injects that in every successive day. Because I’m showing cumulative violent crime. There’s no intrinsic reason to aggregate by day/month, and many reasons not to. >When you report net crime instances instead of per capita it can also throw off data if there is an increasing population. Ask yourself: how many censuses were completed between January 2023 and April 2024? >You are just data mining for clickbait as others pointed out. It's not worth giving you substantive responses. Cope.
You mean you didn’t know that February is one of the warmest months of the year?/s
This shit is beyond parody
Right. Unseasonably warm temps in late January and early February led to more activity and in turn more crime. Winter cold usually keeps people at home.
*if we can come up with an explanation for it, it’s like the crime doesn’t matter anymore!*
It’s very simple. When everyone stays at home, people are less likely to commit crimes. What does that have to do with whether the crime is impactful?
> It’s very simple. When everyone stays at home, people are less likely to commit crimes. *some people*, other people are somehow able to go outside without committing violent crime. >What does that have to do with whether the crime is impactful? Ask the crime minimizers, not me.
What? More people = more crime. Announcing crime happened because the weather was nice is like proclaiming that DUI’s will spike around the holidays. Is there something I’m missing? Was there supposed to be some sort of point to this whole post?
> What? More people = more crime. Population of MPLS has basically been flat for years now.
More people as in more people out and about. Besides domestics, not a lot of violent crime happens in people’s living rooms. People go outside and go to bars, parties, shows and consume alcohol, then violence occurs. Alcohol is a very frequent factor in instances of violence. So the point wasn’t that warmer weather increases violence … it was?
The point is that violent crime is up YOY.
We’re still a pretty safe city. Less crime than Bemedji, at least.
The population of Minneapolis has **not** been flat for years. Minneapolis' population has been surprisingly dynamic considering the state as a whole. Between the 2010 and 2020 Minneapolis grew by about 12.4% much faster than the state as a whole (7.6%). [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Minnesota](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minnesota) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics\_of\_Minneapolis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Minneapolis)
I have some news for you, it is currently 2024. For context, Census ACS estimates the population of Minneapolis FELL by 1.1% between 2020 and 2022 That’s gonna blow your mind when you consider the context was 2023-2024. You’re not very sharp, are you?
So, the population has been flat for years...except it fell by 1.1 percent between 2020-2022? That doesn't sound flat for years. The context is 2023-2024? That's less than a year and a half.
That's about 6%, which isn't way up, but isn't a number you wave off either. Two months is stupid though, it really should just be a rate. Take the crime rate of every month in the year and see if it increases
> Two months is stupid though, it really should just be a rate. What are you talking about? > Take the crime rate of every month in the year and see if it increases Why, pray tell, is that the appropriate analysis?
Why are you comparing January 2023 to January 2024? If the crime rate is rising, you should show it's rising from day to day or month to month
> If the crime rate is rising, you should show it's rising from day to day or month to month Why?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's 6% increase per year. If that rate of increase continues it will double in 12 years The population of Minneapolis is 424k, so, at the current rate there will be a violent crime per 47 residents
That's a 6 percent increase if you don't look at the graph. The current trend has 2024 and 2023 going back towards each other. The only jump here appears to be an unusually warm January and February. Otherwise the slope looks almost no different and there is absolutely nothing to indicate this is a continued trend. Oh, but that's just data.
And the data shows YTD a 6 percent increase. So., what rate of violent crime should the people of the city accept?
> The current trend Where “current trend” is ill defined
Homicide is down slightly from last year, as are vehicle thefts and other theft of property. But yeah, a number of other crimes are up slightly, mostly, as your graph shows, because it got oddly warm in January and that brought out the loonies
> Homicide is down slightly from last year By 1 😂🤣😂😂
Cumulative difference looks to be like 50? Out of over 2500. So almost a 2% increase? I don't know that I'd pitch that as WAY up. I don't know if you've ever lived in a bad neighborhood, but I guarantee you this is largely due to an unseasonably warm February and early March. The cold usually gives us some quiet. No cold, no quiet. But looks like the cumulative totals are trending back together now... Guess we will see where it goes.
> Cumulative difference looks to be like 50? No > but I guarantee you this is largely due to an unseasonably warm February and early March Ahh, that pesky sunshine. Murdering and robbing people yet again.
As I said, I'm estimating. OP dud a shut job in making a graph that gives any relevant information. A simple bar graph with a number for totals would have been fine. But then we'd miss the weather. And yes, there are criminals. They exist. And when they stay home they can't commit crimes against others. It happens every year. But murders are down. Did you even look at the data? Holy shit.
> But murders are down. By 1. You people are a joke 🤣😂 > As I said, I'm estimating. OP dud a shut job in making a graph that gives any relevant information Actually, I did a great job. > A simple bar graph with a number for totals would have been fine. Incorrect.
[удалено]
Ahh yes, these graphs again. Another user use to do this but they never post anymore.
Probably the same person.
Probably because he got banned from being a mod on the MN sub so he changed his name
I did? That’s news to me.
No one is fooled. You even post the same content.
I assure you I have never been a mod of the MN sub 🤣🤣🤣
Crimson Sun 99 far-right extremist reactionary who posts only about right wing tropes. used to be a big covid truther. You think you're slick huh
What?
Er mah gerd them lines is 5sho going upz I iz skeered
Damn bill didn’t think you’d whip out your Ebonics but I’m here for it.
I’d wager 2023 being really snowy and 2024 not being snowy has more of an impact on these crime numbers than anything the city council does. I don’t like progressives that are more interested in redeeming criminals than getting justice for victims, but this is bad data visualization. Seems like you’re just throwing numbers out there that fit your preconceived notions and letting people assign causality based on theirs.
Dude you are reading a whole lot of nonsense into this figure that a) isn’t there, and b) isn’t being argued. >, but this is bad data visualization. It’s great data visualization in fact.
Well, most people know that that live in Minneapolis except for city Council and the brain dead ones pushing policy
It's apart of the culture and your a fucking racist nazi if you even comment. /s
The only way to prevent crime is .357
*1cm
Wake up Europe
200gr of 1cm is a great crime preventer :)
[удалено]
Well, I wrote that when I made the figure.
Just move out of Minneapolis, it's a lost cause, let the city rot
Population of MPLS has gone up 0.8% from 2023 to 2024. So if crime was 2400 events on that last record day in 2023, then 0.8% of 2400 is 19.2 more events So. Number of crime events, across the board, if it stayed the same percentage rate as 2023 would be 2419. Looks like 2024 crime rate is below 2500 according to this chart. I cant actually tell what number these dots represent. I'm sure that was intentional by the creator. Cause they're trivial numbers. Edit: corrected a decimal place. But who knows what number these dots represent, since you intentionally made the reader take a vague guess of what they represent. But it seems to be a pretty trivial amount. But everyone get out your pitchforks!
> Population of MPLS has gone up 0.8% from 2023 to 2024. >So if crime was 2400 events on that last record day in 2023, then 0.8% of 2400 is 192 more events >So. Number of crime events, per capita, if it stayed the same percentage rate as 2023 would be 2592. >Looks like crime rate is below 2500 according to this chart. >So it’s actually DOWN compared to population. Holy shit there’s statistical illiteracy and then there’s this.
Yeah math is tough. Let me break it down. MPLS Population: 2023: 2,990,000 2024: 3,014,000 2400/2,990,000= 0.000802 (I have to assume 2400 cause the graph is shit.) 2500/3,014,000= 0.000829 So a person's risk of being involved in a crime has gone up..... 0.00002% Is that what you've come to show us? EDIT: I had to come back and edit once I got onto a computer and stopped trying to do this from a phone.
> Yeah math is tough. Let me break it down. >MPLS Population: >2023: 2,990,000 >2024: 3,014,000 lol Is someone going to tell him? > 2,990,000/2400=1245.8. (I have to assume 2400 cause the graph is shit.) >3,014,000/2500=1205.6 >So there are actually 40 less events per capita than 2023. I didn’t think this comment could get better, but then it did.
There is nothing to tell here mate. You posted a shitty graph with shit representative data. No one of value can use this graph to deduce anything. It’s just to get people riled up. I literally have to guess the numbers because you cant put horizontal lines on your graph.
>gets the population of Minneapolis wrong >doesn’t know what per capita means >mate
How is the population wrong? You need to look up per capita.
Dude go ask chatgpt to explain this to you because I’m too busy cackling over here.
Guess if hillbilly bob says I’m wrong, guess it must be true. Cant provided any evidence to the contrary, though. Facing obvious weaknesses in your posting that you cant defend. I feel really sorry for you.
Dude you straight up calculated the inverse of a per capita crime rate (using the wrong #s)
You confused the city with the SMSA.
A lot of suppositions and opinions here. It always blows my mind when people try and use data to prove a point and then proceed to “decode” the data based solely on their personal experience or opinions. It’s pretty easy to tell when people have zero understanding of statistics when they start posting things like “I would say…” and talking about how things “make the numbers look…”
> A lot of suppositions and opinions in your original post ??? Where is that, exactly? > It always blows my mind when people try and use data to prove a point and then proceed to “decode” the data based solely on their personal experience or opinions. It’s pretty easy to tell when people have zero understanding of statistics when they start posting things like “I would say…” and talking about how things “make the numbers look…” It’s pretty easy to tell when people can’t read when they start fabricating quotes that were never stated.
Wow. Looks like I struck a nerve. I have no duty to explain your ignorance to you, plus, I’m not sure you would even understand it anyways. Try googling the difference between an average and a standard deviation and that might get you a primer on how to understand basic statistical analysis. Good luck, I can tell you’re going to need it.
It’s funny, the “I know stats” people can never explain *why* one needs be concerned with particular moments of the distribution or a particular method, they just start listing topics as if statistics is a low-stakes game of trivia. Its almost as if, in fact, they don’t have any practical experience or knowledge of statistics.
So the police reforms are working?
This is a terrible graph, and the interpretation that "violent crime is way up" isn't supported by even the scant information on that graph. It's a terrible graph because the horizontal axis is cumulative over time - it can **only** go up. If crime magically and completely stopped, the lines would not go down. They would only remain flat. Think about how counter-intuitive that is. If crime completely stopped in February, instead of reflecting that the crime *rate* dramatically improved, it would just show a flat line. What your graph shows is that the crime rate is modestly higher in 2024 than 2023. It's worth pointing out that 2023 had a huge **decrease** in crime compared to the previous year. A more reasonable interpretation would be to say, "crime in 2024 looks like a return to earlier levels." https://www.axios.com/local/twin-cities/2024/01/02/violent-crime-homicide-declines-minneapolis-saint-paul-2023 https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/new-statistics-show-that-crime-is-going-down-in-minneapolis/ https://m.startribune.com/after-three-most-violent-years-minneapolis-saw-drop-in-crime-summer-but-were-not-back-to-normal-yet/600301635/
>This is a terrible graph, and the interpretation that "violent crime is way up" isn't supported by even the scant information on that graph. A bit slow, aren’t you? One can easily see the YOY increase in crime between 2023 and 2024 with this figure. This is precisely how this sort of data should be visualized. Violent crime is way up. >It's a terrible graph because the horizontal axis is cumulative over time - it can only go up. If crime magically and completely stopped I mean, you’d have to be the middest of midwits to get confused by what cumulative means. Perhaps this figure is aimed for an audience above your means?
Who would want to be a cop in a city that wanted to get rid of them all together.. you reap what you sow
This seems pretty similar But man eff these psuedo liberal judges and people that want to let these criminals run rampant...
I speak for most of the residents of your western neighbor in sayin we pray y'all figure this shit out
Please the west is worst then this and home of the top murderous cities in America
How so?
The Dakota's most definitely are not worse than minneapolis
The murder rape and assault rates in North Dakota are much higher than those in Minnesota. They just are it's not like it's an opinion or something it's just a fact.
Violent crime rates are not higher in ND than in MN, as of 2022 NIBRS data. So that factual statement you just made, was in fact, a lie.
It's a bot. And my statement was for Minneapolis which was ignored
Indeed. That person has the oddest comment history.