Citing murder rates (and ignoring other crimes) is one of the preferred tactics of people who want to say that big cities have low crime rates.
Police in big cities go after big crimes like murders, but tend to ignore "lesser" crimes, so as a result, gangsters and other career criminals stick to those lesser crimes, and generally do a lot more of them.
No, because they don't correlate with violent crime rates, which are also tracked. Murder is actually a really weird crime: if basically never happens between people who don't know each other.
A useful source was literally cited in the comment I replied to. Look at rankings of cities by crime. You will find SF and NYC close to the bottom of the pack on murders, but toward the top on property crimes and low-level violent crimes.
You completely misrepresented what they would prosecute, literally from the article you linked to:
> marijuana misdemeanors, including selling more than three ounces; not paying public transportation fare; trespassing except a fourth degree stalking charge, resisting arrest, obstructing governmental administration in certain cases, and prostitution
Literally nothing you insinuated. Please stop peddling lazy lies and ideas.
You might want to read the primary source before accusing someone of lying. Misdemeanor assault and petty theft are also on the list. I admit that I chose a left-leaning article to cite so that people like you would read something rather than dismissing it outright as biased, but the primary source is linked there. CNN, apparently peddlers of "lazy lies" themselves, chose not to put the full list down.
You didn’t link anything to prove your point. And you’re literally blaming CNN for how you spun the article? I’ll stop here because it’s clear you’re irrational.
The article I liked to you had a link in it to the primary source at the very top of the article. Read the primary source. Every secondary source spins everything - always go back to the primary source if you want the news.
By the way, the full list of crimes that are not getting prosecuted is very long (covering a lot of misdemeanors and a few felonies), and CNN wanted to write an uplifitng story, so they chose the crimes that I presume are popular to not prosecute. It's not that complicated to understand the bias, and I'm not suggesting that anyone has done anything malicious. I only said that they were "peddling 'lazy lies'" because that source did exactly what you accused me of (misrepresenting what they will and won't prosecute).
A lot of people (particularly on this forum) try this form of lazy argumentation where they ask for sources for any claim they don't like so they can go try to poke holes in one source or another without actually doing any research. If you want to argue about something, go do some research and stop accusing other people of "lying" and "irrationality." What you are doing here is a textbook example of arguing in bad faith.
It's not a bad deal at all, if that's what they stick to. It's really mostly non-violent thefts these days. That still doesn't make the area "low-crime" or "safe."
Police in big cities go after big crimes like murders, but tend to ignore "lesser" crimes, so as a result, gangsters and other career criminals stick to those lesser crimes, and generally do a lot more of them.