Ferguson Effect?

[bust]

Wait, a radical organization that supports/funds Black Lives Matters, and which wants to empty the jails in America, thinks there is no relationship between the urban unrest in Ferguson and Baltimore, and the skyrocketing crime immediately following the urban unrest. I'm completely shocked!

Next, let's consult the KKK, Nation of Islam, Westboro Baptist and ISIS for their unbiased, nuanced take on the situation...

Back in the real world, it's clear that there has been an uptick in violent crime following Ferguson/Baltimore, and it's clear that police have been "standing down" in response to the lies brought about by Black Lives Matter. We know this because we already have the data.

One can argue correlation-causation [[ I suppose one could argue it's all a wacky coincidence or something) but one can't argue the surge in crime or the timing of the surge.

Sadly, you're proving more misguided than at first I imagined. From the very beginning of my exposure to you you proved very loose with facts. Upon further exposure to your viewpoints it's become clearer where they come from. There are parallels between your opinions and the populist drivel that has filled the void left by the general absence of informative mass media in Detroit. It takes a little extra effort, but please do more research before formulating an opinion. No one will benefit more than you. The rest of us can ignore you, but your ignorance affects you all day long.

I appreciate civil debates and principled disagreements. I have no patience for lazy attempts to defend a viewpoint with falsehoods, hyperbole, and bad logic. Nor with misdirections into cesspools where no one else wants to go. Your attempt to knock the conversation down to such a low emotional level is a weak ploy to avoid debating the facts. It is possible you are not in control of your own emotions, and are captive to them yourself.

[Gpwrangler]

The argument behind the Ferguson Effect is not that officers are 'standing down', whatever that means.

Standing down might be an appropriate word for that idiot clerk in Kentucky who put her religious beliefs above the law she vowed to enforce. The Ferguson Effect does not suggest officers aren't doing their job. It suggests that they are being just a little bit less aggressive -- especially in high-risk situations.

Isn't this what BLM wants? Less aggressive policing? Don't hassle people. Don't get worked up about 'victimless' crimes or 'quality of life' crimes.

I don't think police are 'standing down'. They just are thinking twice. Being just a little less aggressive. Trying to make sure they don't get into a situation that will look bad.

Bad guys figure this out. Like bad kids, they push the limits. They notice that they aren't getting hassled quite as much. They take slightly greater risks than before. The crime rate ticks up just a little bit.

That's the Ferguson Effect -- and we don't know that its the cause of the currently trends... but we should watch and listen. Sticking our heads in the sand and screaming that its not true doesn't get us to the right solution.

Nobody's screaming and you said "standing down", I didn't. And they're not.

[LP_85]

Wait, a radical organization that supports/funds Black Lives Matters, and which wants to empty the jails in America...

"The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust racial disparities and practices, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration."

Intentionally distorting the positions of others makes it impossible to have a useful discussion. The fact that violent crime rates have been trending downwards for years, while at the same time incarceration rates have skyrocketed to all-time highs is a real and serious problem and warrants quality research. What, specifically, do you take issue with regarding their data and conclusions?

thinks there is no relationship between the urban unrest in Ferguson and Baltimore, and the skyrocketing crime immediately following the urban unrest. I'm completely shocked!

Back in the real world, it's clear that there has been an uptick in violent crime following Ferguson/Baltimore, and it's clear that police have been "standing down" in response to the lies brought about by Black Lives Matter. We know this because we already have the data.

Yes, we have the data. And absolutely none of it supports what you've said. There is no evidence of "skyrocketing" crime following the events in Ferguson and Baltimore. St. Louis murder rates increased last year before anything happened to Michael Brown.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/w...p-in-the-data/

Overall, though, things haven't changed much from the past several years, at least judging by the number of homicides committed in major cities. While the number of homicides has increased in many big cities, the increases are moderate, not more than they were a few years ago. Meanwhile, crime has declined in other cities.

Overall, most cities are still far safer than they were two decades ago, and virtually all of that improvement has remained. That's when the rate of violent crime began a long, steep decline nationally. Although violent crime has been decreasing overall, the general trend hasn't been uniform. The data on crime so far this year does not show clearly that the trend toward safer streets is ending or reversing.

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2...es-not-so-fast

Among the 16 top-20 cities for which I found publically available data, only three experienced statistically reliable increases. Only one of the top-20 cities included in the Times’ sample, Chicago, experienced an increase that was statistically significant. Five of the smaller cities included by the Times did experience statistically reliable increases, but what of the other 35 cities with populations in that range?

Even where a statistically reliable increase has been experienced, a single year-to-year increase does not necessarily imply a meaningful trend. Often, such changes fall within the range of normal year-to-year fluctuations. For example, I was able to obtain historical data on year-to-year changes in homicide counts for Chicago, the only top-20 city in the Times analysis that had a statistically significant increase from 2014 to 2015. From 2009 to 2010, homicides increased 5.1 percent. The next year, however, there was a 13.1 percent decrease. The year after that, a 28.5 percent increase, and then decreases of 16.4 and 3.4 percent in 2013 and 2014, before homicides climbed back up 11.3 percent in 2015. Looked at over a longer time period, the numbers do not demonstrate a stable trend.

One can argue correlation-causation [[ I suppose one could argue it's all a wacky coincidence or something) but one can't argue the surge in crime or the timing of the surge.

We can't even argue correlation-causation because there's nothing to correlate. There is no evidence of any "surge" in crime.

[Wesley Mouch]

"The Sentencing Project works for a fair and effective U.S. criminal justice system by promoting reforms in sentencing policy, addressing unjust racial disparities and practices, and advocating for alternatives to incarceration."

Intentionally distorting the positions of others makes it impossible to have a useful discussion. The fact that violent crime rates have been trending downwards for years, while at the same time incarceration rates have skyrocketed to all-time highs is a real and serious problem and warrants quality research. What, specifically, do you take issue with regarding their data and conclusions?

Yes, we have the data. And absolutely none of it supports what you've said. There is no evidence of "skyrocketing" crime following the events in Ferguson and Baltimore. St. Louis murder rates increased last year before anything happened to Michael Brown.
...snip...
We can't even argue correlation-causation because there's nothing to correlate. There is no evidence of any "surge" in crime.

I believe you're selectively reading data from reports that agree with you. The conclusion of the Sentencing Project on the Ferguson Effect [[which I quoted in full in an earlier post) says:

Sentencing Project on Ferguson Effect [[excerpt): Whatever their cause, double-digit homicide increases in St. Louis and other cities during the past several months should not be discounted as unimportant or as mere “random fluctuations” in crime statistics – not when so many lives are at stake.

Your own source says we don't yet know, but says the increases are of concern.

[CassTechGrad]

DETROIT [[WWJ) – “Pigs in a blanket — fry ’em like bacon!”

Detroit Police Chief James Craig is among those outraged over that controversial chant during a “Black Lives Matter” rally outside the Minnesota State Fair over the weekend.

“I’m a police officer, and yes, I’m offended,” the chief told WWJ’s Vickie Thomas and other reporters on Tuesday. “Highly offended; I’ve been in this business 38 years. I am a cop….But we’re not gonna shirk our responsibility to providing the type of police services that we do.”

Craig was asked if there are fears police officers are being targeted.
“No doubt!” Craig said. “I have always realized throughout my career that the possibility of being a target is reality
Craig said it’s time to stand up and say enough is enough.


Protesters involved in the rally said the chant was not meant to advocate violence against law enforcement.

Detroit Police Chief James Craig speaks to reporters on Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2015

[Wesley Mouch]

DETROIT [[WWJ) – “Pigs in a blanket — fry ’em like bacon!”...snip...
Protesters involved in the rally said the chant was not meant to advocate violence against law enforcement.

Well of course not. They only meant to infer it, not advocate. They really love the police. They're just confused.

[LP_85]

I believe you're selectively reading data from reports that agree with you.

I've presented as much information as I've been able to find. Regardless of who put together the reports and made the graphs, the data itself is directly from the FBI and local police agencies:
http://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm
http://www.slmpd.org/crime_stats.shtml

If you've somehow got data that shows something different, present it. The numbers and the trends are clear.

The conclusion of the Sentencing Project on the Ferguson Effect [[which I quoted in full in an earlier post) says:

Your own source says we don't yet know, but says the increases are of concern.

I read the conclusion of the report the first time I read the report. You don't need to keep quoting it. Yes, the cause of increased murder rates [[in some areas) is not known. Any increase in violence is something to be concerned about. I agree.

You seem to think that means we can keep blaming something that has no evidence to support it. It does not. If you claim something is happening, and the numbers do not support it, you cannot keep claiming that it is happening.

If you think the Ferguson Effect is real, then you need to show, first, that urban murders are increasing broadly across America [[as you claimed in your original post without providing any supporting evidence). You also need to demonstrate that those increases are a direct result of police changing their tactics as a result of protests against police brutality. Unless and until you provide evidence of both, you don't get to keep invoking the Ferguson Effect.

[Gpwrangler]

Well of course not. They only meant to infer it, not advocate. They really love the police. They're just confused.

If someone made a threat like that in a school or airport they'd be arrested and the area would be locked down and searched for explosives. Not sure when we got too pussified to prosecute terroristic threats but I'm guessing this shit wouldn't have happened prior to '08.

[mtburb]

Uh oh. Looks like we have something.

http://imgur.com/gallery/niIivHN

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/mod...c-1a0579b08c51

Looks like he even wants me to join in [[as I can see two of my aliases that I use on other sites). He even went as far as to mention the local news outlets, Duggan and Craig.

[Wesley Mouch]

I've presented as much information as I've been able to find. Regardless of who put together the reports and made the graphs, the data itself is directly from the FBI and local police agencies:
http://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/Crime.cfm
http://www.slmpd.org/crime_stats.shtml

If you've somehow got data that shows something different, present it. The numbers and the trends are clear.

I read the conclusion of the report the first time I read the report. You don't need to keep quoting it. Yes, the cause of increased murder rates [[in some areas) is not known. Any increase in violence is something to be concerned about. I agree.

You seem to think that means we can keep blaming something that has no evidence to support it. It does not. If you claim something is happening, and the numbers do not support it, you cannot keep claiming that it is happening.

If you think the Ferguson Effect is real, then you need to show, first, that urban murders are increasing broadly across America [[as you claimed in your original post without providing any supporting evidence). You also need to demonstrate that those increases are a direct result of police changing their tactics as a result of protests against police brutality. Unless and until you provide evidence of both, you don't get to keep invoking the Ferguson Effect.

Read the OP quoting the NYTimes. You can read the full article. The liberal [[but widely respected) NYTimes gives figures:

More than 30 other cities have also reported increases in violence from a year ago. In New Orleans, 120 people had been killed by late August, compared with 98 during the same period a year earlier. In Baltimore, homicides had hit 215, up from 138 at the same point in 2014. In Washington, the toll was 105, compared with 73 people a year ago. And in St. Louis, 136 people had been killed this year, a 60 percent rise from the 85 murders the city had by the same time last year.

Law enforcement experts say disparate factors are at play in different cities, though no one is claiming to know for sure why murder rates are climbing. Some officials say intense national scrutiny of the use of force by the police has made officers less aggressive and emboldened criminals, though many experts dispute that theory.

To answer your questions:
Urban Murders Increasing: NYTimes says 'increases in violence' in '30 other cities'
Direct Result of Police Tactics: Of course it can't be proven. And of course its not a direct result. Its an indirect result. That's the point. Forget the bad officers. They exist. And they probably don't believe they're bad -- and they probably continue to hassle blacks because they're bad and need to be controlled. Its the good cops. That's who changes their behavior just a little bit. Who are just a little bit less assertive.

btw, its really getting interesting on this topic. In further reading on the web, you can I've found that much of the media of the left is attacking the Times for this article. There is no Ferguson Effect. Nope. Tell me, why is it so important to eliminate this possibility? The numbers are only just starting to come in. People are 'cherry-picking' their figures to support their position. I found credible numbers both for and against the number of officers shot/killed this year. [[Maybe shooting are up, but deaths down?) I don't know. But the effort to squash FE is what's really interesting to me. Why? Must BLM be right? And if not, what's the problem. You just adjust your tactics.

The only explanation I can make is political. BLM is predicated on the idea that police brutality is the biggest problem. That cities are plagued with police brutality and racism. And they've become quite important because the media has taken this idea cause up. And its a valid cause. But is this really the #1 problem in cities? Maybe crime really is the #1 problem -- and BLM and adherents are concerned that the Peggy Hubbards have a different agenda -- without BLM in the center? You gotta wonder why something has to be refuted with such vigor.

[LP_85]

Read the OP quoting the NYTimes. You can read the full article. The liberal [[but widely respected) NYTimes gives figures:

And they're only comparing this year to last year. Comparing one year to the previous year is never enough to indicate a trend. Ever. No statistician worth their salt would ever imply a trend with just two data points. Not to mention that there's still four months to go in 2015. Inferring a trend when there's still a third of the year to go just doesn't make sense.

Yes, the Times is correct that the cities they listed have had an increase in murders. That still does not, in any way point to "skyrocketing" or "surging" rates across the country. Let's actually break down the examples you quoted from the article.

New Orleans: 120 so far this year, compared to 98 this time last year. Yes, that's an increase, but still quite a ways off from the year-end total of 150 in 2014. There very well could be more than 30 murders by the end of this year, but there could also be fewer. We just don't know. But it's also nowhere near the two highest points in the last decade: 200 in 2011, and 209 in 2007. Here's the raw data: 2005-2012, 2013-2014

Baltimore: This number is certainly larger, and cause for concern. But it's still not close to the 10-year high of 282 in 2007, and still dwarfed by the 30-year high of 353 in 1993. 1985-2012

Washington: Still a long long way to go to reach levels seen in 2008 [[186), and well within range of other fluctuations compared to the massive dropoff seen since the early 90s. 1985-2012

St. Louis: Again, an increase, but still not as high as in 2008 [[167), and highly unlikely to get anywhere near the peak it reached from 1991-1994. 1985-2012

To answer your questions:
Urban Murders Increasing: NYTimes says 'increases in violence' in '30 other cities'

Except there are 60 total US cities in that same population range. If only 30 saw violent crime increase, then it must be fair to infer that the other 30 saw crime decrease or remain flat. Half of the cities seeing an increase does not seem like enough to infer any broad trend. And an "increase" could mean 100 more, or it could be one more - the article does not specify. As has been pointed out, many of the cities mentioned in the Times article did not have an increase which was statistically significant. Which means that it's safe to say that less than half have actually seen a meaningful increase in violent crime.

Direct Result of Police Tactics: Of course it can't be proven. And of course its not a direct result. Its an indirect result. That's the point. Forget the bad officers. They exist. And they probably don't believe they're bad -- and they probably continue to hassle blacks because they're bad and need to be controlled. Its the good cops. That's who changes their behavior just a little bit. Who are just a little bit less assertive.

You've made this claim several times in this thread, yet offered zero evidence to support it. If this was actually happening, there would be some evidence, somewhere, of police being "less assertive" in a way that allows crime to increase. Put up or shut up.

btw, its really getting interesting on this topic. In further reading on the web, you can I've found that much of the media of the left is attacking the Times for this article. There is no Ferguson Effect. Nope. Tell me, why is it so important to eliminate this possibility? The numbers are only just starting to come in. People are 'cherry-picking' their figures to support their position. I found credible numbers both for and against the number of officers shot/killed this year. [[Maybe shooting are up, but deaths down?) I don't know. But the effort to squash FE is what's really interesting to me. Why? Must BLM be right? And if not, what's the problem. You just adjust your tactics.

It's not about an "effort to squash" anything. It's about the facts. Period. This isn't cherry picking. This is looking at as much data as possible and interpreting it responsibly. The reason the Times article is being criticized is simply because the numbers don't add up.

The thing is, the drum beat of an impending "crime wave" is not new. This report from 2006 warns of a "gathering storm of violent crime." Which never happened. Crime continued to fall over the following decade, as it had in the preceding decade. And it's not just "the left" that takes issue with the implications of the Times piece:

http://reason.com/blog/2015/09/02/ci...r-violent-crim

The only explanation I can make is political. BLM is predicated on the idea that police brutality is the biggest problem. That cities are plagued with police brutality and racism. And they've become quite important because the media has taken this idea cause up. And its a valid cause. But is this really the #1 problem in cities? Maybe crime really is the #1 problem -- and BLM and adherents are concerned that the Peggy Hubbards have a different agenda -- without BLM in the center? You gotta wonder why something has to be refuted with such vigor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallac...tive_privation

Something doesn't need to be "the #1 problem" in order to be something that people feel they need to stand up and shout about. Neighborhood crime being a potentially bigger issue does not mean that people pushing for a better relationship with police need to sit down and shut up.

And the only thing I have "vigor" for is reliable, verifiable evidence. Which you have, so far, failed to provide in any substantial way.

[aj3647]

If someone made a threat like that in a school or airport they'd be arrested and the area would be locked down and searched for explosives. Not sure when we got too pussified to prosecute terroristic threats but I'm guessing this shit wouldn't have happened prior to '08.

You're right. Obama controls how the LOCAL police enforce local and state laws. If Chief Craig thought their chant was an illegal threat, then why didn't he order them to be arrested? Oh right...Obama. Obama stopped him. Somehow.

If you have a specific problem with the Grand Juries, then the problem is with your fellow citizens, not with police. But I suspect you just don't like the Grand Jury decisions because it doesn't fit your totally discredited killer cop/innocent criminal, "hands up don't shoot" worldview.

Where did I say anything at all about Grand Juries? You brought that up. Not all jurisdictions even have the Grand Jury system. In Michigan, Grand Juries are almost never used. In many, many instances, the decision whether or not to prosecute a police officer lies solely with the District Attorney...the same person who works with the police every day to prosecute criminals and maintains a working relationship with them.

But I'm curious to hear your opinion. Do you think Officer Michael Slager is guilty of murder in the death of Walter Scott in North Charleston, South Carolina? What about the University of Cincinnati officer who shot an unarmed black motorist in the head during a traffic stop? Because in instances like that, I notice that people like you don't give a shit. Can you even bring yourself to admit the facts of those cases, or will you sidestep any condemnation of the officers in those instances? Or worse yet, defend them?

[mtburb]

Meanwhile, how ironic is it that the threat mentioned some of the local news outlets and yet none of them are even reporting on it?

Uh oh. Looks like we have something.

http://imgur.com/gallery/niIivHN

https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/mod...c-1a0579b08c51

Looks like he even wants me to join in [[as I can see two of my aliases that I use on other sites). He even went as far as to mention the local news outlets, Duggan and Craig.

[iheartthed]

I believe you're selectively reading data from reports that agree with you. The conclusion of the Sentencing Project on the Ferguson Effect [[which I quoted in full in an earlier post) says:

Your own source says we don't yet know, but says the increases are of concern.
[/FONT][/SIZE]
[/FONT]

St. Louis's murder rate was on the rise before the Ferguson incident even happened.

[Jimaz]

On page two of today's hardcopy Free Press there's a brief article titled "Chicago, other cities see killings increase." "St. Louis" is mentioned once:

In St. Louis, homicides are up about 60%.

but neither "Ferguson" nor "Ferguson Effect" are mentioned at all.

Experts say it is difficult to explain what is behind the surge in violence — some people cite cuts in mental health services, low wages, policing and gun laws. Tracy Siska of the non-profit Chicago Justice Project research group, said the reasons are broader, "rooted in poverty, lack of education and lack of opportunities...."

[Wesley Mouch]

St. Louis's murder rate was on the rise before the Ferguson incident even happened.

I agree that it's too early to tell what's really happening.

I take it you think the NYTimes is just wrong? That this just isn't possible?

That's what I can't figure out. Why can't it be possible? It seems like a logical result of higher scrutiny of incidents.

[Ray1936]

What I think of this whole thing.

[Bham1982]

And the only thing I have "vigor" for is reliable, verifiable evidence. Which you have, so far, failed to provide in any substantial way.

I hope this is satire. Your post was definitely the most ridiculous and the one least concerned with facts on this thread.

The facts are that crime rose significantly in a large number of U.S. cities immediately following urban unrest of the past year. It's reasonable to ask whether these issues are related.

It's not reasonable to do as you say, and just wait 10 years because you're not convinced that criminologists, police captains and the like know what they're talking about in the present.

[Bham1982]

We can't even argue correlation-causation because there's nothing to correlate. There is no evidence of any "surge" in crime.

And this is simply a lie. There is irrefutable evidence of a surge in crime. The "why" can plausibly be debated, but no one debates that crime soared in Baltimore, Ferguson, and the like following the urban unrest.

Are you claiming that everyone is lying? The police are fabricating murders? The victims families are hiding the folks that the police are claiming are dead?

[Gpwrangler]

If Chief Craig thought their chant was an illegal threat, then why didn't he order them to be arrested?

Didn't want a riot, would be my guess.

[Wesley Mouch]

...snip...
And the only thing I have "vigor" for is reliable, verifiable evidence. Which you have, so far, failed to provide in any substantial way.

Our 'paper of record' is a pretty good source, especially since it is biased against the idea. The 'Sentencing Project' agrees that the stats are worth watching. Its reasonable to be on the lookout.

Your vigor to dispel any hint that this 'might' be a problem causes others to discount your statistics. Nobody is gonna get verifiable evidence here. Its gonna be a look at the trend over time.

So put your stats away for a while, and think about how urban crime is best fought. I think we need to work on the issue of how some officers behave with prejudice and are killing black youth, while at the same time realizing that 'broken windows' policing needs to be recognized for the great reduction in urban crime -- while at the same time ensuring that its done with respect for everyone.

[aj3647]

Didn't want a riot, would be my guess.

Or maybe he rightfully knew that you can't arrest someone for free speech that "sounds like it might imply violence." Yeah I'm pretty sure those arrests would hold up under Constitution muster. "Your Honor, they called us 'pigs' and then referred to a food that is made from pigs, so we had to arrest them..."

I don't think it's a coincidence that you and your ilk are so quick to endorse fascist police state-style tactics when it comes to dealing with black protesters. When it's white Tea Party gun nuts holding motherfucking AR-15s and making veiled threats of violence like talking about "Second Amendment solutions" or refreshing the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants, you call them patriots and heroes. When a white anti-government zealot refers to Second Amendment solutions, is that not a veiled threat of violence?

[Gpwrangler]

Or maybe he rightfully knew that you can't arrest someone for free speech that "sounds like it might imply violence." ?

I'm sure he knows you can. But I guess terroristic threats are OK with some people. Not me, no matter who makes 'em.

This whole thread is fucking bullshit.

[Farwell]

When is the last time said Tea-Partyer, 2nd amendment zealot burned down their neighborhood and looted the stores. This is absurd!

[LP_85]

I hope this is satire. Your post was definitely the most ridiculous and the one least concerned with facts on this thread.

I'm directly addressing the numbers. What about them have I gotten incorrect?

The facts are that crime rose significantly in a large number of U.S. cities immediately following urban unrest of the past year. It's reasonable to ask whether these issues are related.

How many is "a large number" of cities? You're going to need to be specific, because every source I've been able to find indicates no more than eight [[of the 60 most populous) US cities experiencing a statistically reliable increase in violent crime recently. Seriously, if you've got more I'd love to know.

It's not reasonable to do as you say, and just wait 10 years because you're not convinced that criminologists, police captains and the like know what they're talking about in the present.

I'm not saying wait ten years for anything. I'm saying there's no more evidence for an impending national crime wave today than there was a decade ago, and banging the drum like there is doesn't help anything now, just as it didn't then.

And this is simply a lie. There is irrefutable evidence of a surge in crime. The "why" can plausibly be debated, but no one debates that crime soared in Baltimore, Ferguson, and the like following the urban unrest.

Not broadly nationwide, unless you define "surge" to mean any increase at all. Some cities saw smaller increases. Some saw no increases, or decreases.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, St. Louis [[the urban area closest to Ferguson with publicly available data) saw murder rates begin climbing before any civil unrest in Ferguson, and it did not increase any faster afterwards. So it is not reasonable to say crime "soared" there "following urban unrest." In New Orleans, the crime "surge" there cannot be reasonably tied to a Ferguson Effect because of the different types of crimes being committed.

In all of the information I've been able to find [[and again seriously, if you've got information to the contrary, show me), Baltimore is the only city where rioting may have had a significant impact on later violent crime. And even there, a host of other issues are likely to have been at play as well. That one city had a large spike in violence following unrest in that same city is not indicative of a broad nationwide trend, though.

Are you claiming that everyone is lying? The police are fabricating murders? The victims families are hiding the folks that the police are claiming are dead?

What are you talking about? In what way have I suggested that any numbers are wrong or fabricated? I just linked to 30 years of nationwide crime statistics from the FBI. I have no reason to dispute the numbers provided by law enforcement agencies.

What I dispute is a) that the cities that have seen large increases in violent crime are part of a broad nationwide trend, and b) that those increases can be reliably connected to changes in policing as a result of civil unrest, and not to deeper, more varied factors. I have yet to see compelling evidence of either. I'm all ears.