LAPD's public database omits nearly 40% of this year's crimes

LAPD's public database omits nearly 40% of this year's crimes

www.latimes.com

The Los Angeles Police Department's online crime map intended for public use has failed to include nearly 40% of serious crimes reported in the city, a Times analysis has found.

The omissions, which date back at least six months, include thousands of crimes known to LAPD officials and are included in their official crime statistics.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Now, this is interesting. Why would forty percent of crimes be omitted from the database? According to the article, the database was initiated so the safety of particular could be gauged.

The map, touted as a way for residents to monitor the safety of their neighborhoods, doesn't include about 19,000 serious crimes reported in other LAPD data. Officials say they're looking into it.

Are they trying to make certain areas appear safer than they actually are, or is there something else they are trying to hide? Perhaps some of the crimes omitted were frame-ups or covered up?


TA

www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Simple, Hide the real statistics and voila Obama is god of reducing crime rates.
I wonder who and what the 40% demographic that was swept under the rug was

reply to post by keepithush


Good point. It certainly wouldn't hurt any politician to make it appear as though the crime rate is declining. It's a very distinct possibility that that is the reason behind this little 'oversight.'


TA

reply to post by keepithush


Yea one group immediately jumps to mind, but if I said it then it would be "racist".

Honestly, I know why they are omitting these statistics and if you put two and two together with the knowledge that LA is a sanctuary city, it might seem like jumping to conclusions, but why else would they omit 40% of crimes.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife


I tend to agree. Call me whatever you want to, but statistics don't lie unless they're intentionally altered, as in this case.


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


Yea, I agree. There is this thing called the law of probability. And it is probably likely what most of us are thinking.

Some people just can't accept the truth of the matter. I'm sure this is all we will ever find out about this too. No follow up story and if there is I will be surprised.

reply to post by Hastobemoretolife

I'm sure this is all we will ever find out about this too.

Most likely.

They will either pretend this never happened or, if pressed, apologize profusely, pretend it was a clerical error, and go about covering these things up a little better the next time. Either way, no substantive change will come about.


TA

[edit on 9-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

reply to post by TheAssociate


Nope, and I'm sure there are other reasons behind it too, to show LA has less crime to attract more tourism, increase migrants from other states, etc.

With Cali in as big of trouble financial wise I could imagine that they are begging for people to come live in LA. The have to keep those social programs going you know.

That is really a very very big number and very disturbing to me. And my opinion based on what I know...I think they are 'cooking the books' so to speak to make it look like crime is down.

Im actually in the middle of my criminology class right now and I brought this very article up in it - because it is a very very important issue in the criminal justice world. It is impossible to follow crime in the country when it is NOT being reported properly.

It is rather known in the criminal justice world that most of the ways of collecting and reporting crime (for statistical purpose and research) is flawed. It has been found that many cities in fact leave out reporting crimes to the UCR (Uniform Crime Report) to make it look like their cities have less crime than they actually do.

If you think about it - who wants to live in an area high in crime. Most people when relocating to a new area - check to see what the crime statistics are. If crime is low - more people - more money for the area.

Anyways, just my thoughts on this for whatever it is worth



[edit on July 9th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

reply to post by greeneyedleo


Interesting information, greeneyedleo. I didn't know (though I could've guessed) that cities actually avoided reporting the amount of crime they experience. Makes sense, though. Like you said, who wants to visit a particularly crime-ridden city?


TA

reply to post by TheAssociate


They don't want people seeing their side of town is dangerous, so the move to the safest sides of town, not realizing it was their own ignorant families causing the problems, and bring down another section of the city. Happened to the city I grew up in.. all these people from the "west" side of town started moving to the south and the north east and crime started sky rocketing, even though they supposedly moved to avoid the crime.

That's my guess anyways.

I don't doubt that this was done intentionally. The numbers are just too way out there. And, I don't doubt that it was done for political reason. But, I'd be hard pressed to say that it was done for Obama's benefit.

Seriously people, Obama isn't as all-powerful as you appear to want him to be. Especially at the local level as this story is. I'd say it is more than likely a local politician.

Lots of places do that. Small towns are notorious for it. Makes it much more appealing to people thinking of moving to the area, new businesses, tourism, etc. They do the same with education statistics, income, and drug problems.

I have seen several references to Obama and one to the financial conditions of California, but what about the Governor?

Could he be more or less affected by these "cooked" reports?

Edited to add that I looked into the definitions and the definition for rape applies only to women, I hope that flaw is only on the definition on the site and not on the law, or does it really mean that legally a man cannot be raped?

[edit on 10/7/2009 by ArMaP]

Here's my take on it.

1 of 2 things occurred the first being a mistake, computer hack or just lazy employees that haven't got around to putting it in the system or,

It was a political move that wasn't intended to go public but somehow was leaked to the general media.

In politics numbers mean everything. If you can show you effectively reduced crime by 40% in one area then you are in a nice spot politically speaking.

An example would be this:

People call in sick to work every Monday and it causes a lot of overtime to be paid out. You start a policy saying if you call in sick on Monday you have to work on Saturday to make it up.

Now because they work on Saturday it doesn't reflect the sick time used because you put in you hours that week.

Now the folks who abuse their sick time will avoid calling in on Monday's and choose a different day so what just happened here politically then?

The boss can both say and show he has reduced the number of sick calls on Monday and show number wise that not only are there less people calling in sick on that day but also show he has drastically cut down on the amount of sick time hours used.

Now we all know that even though that is true it's not for the reasons that his boss is led to believe. But it makes him look great on paper, it also makes the false presentation that massive amounts of sick time have been stopped during the week (because they make up 8 hours on Saturday). And on top of that he can say that he worked out a system where employees now work on Saturday too and there is no overtime ever paid out to these same people. Saying he convinced them to work on Saturday instead of Monday to help catch up on things that were not done on Friday.

It's pure 100% politicing and I hate to say it but I love politicin.

Just a couple idea's why, maybe to use it to falsely show that crime has dropped by 40% while someone was in office to promote their career agenda.

I wanted to post the response given from my criminology professor on this article which I shared with her and my class:

As you know, reporting to the FBI for inclusion into the Uniform Crime Report is voluntary and there are no real guidelines for how to do that. Many departments have a vested interest in either making their crime look LOW (if a particular official is seeking reelection, for example and wants to look like he or she has reduced crime) or in making their crime look HIGH (if a particular official is trying to argue for more resources or officers).

[edit on July 10th 2009 by greeneyedleo]

Good points everyone. I don't think it's a vast conspiracy with world-changing implications, but I do believe this to be a conspiracy. Someone is cooking the books to make the place appear safer than it really is. Who that is and for what reason we may never know, but I think it's good that this was brought to light. I doubt the responsible parties will be held accountable and appropriately admonished, but we are a bit the wiser for having found out about this.


TA

[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheAssociate]

[edit on 10-7-2009 by TheAssociate]