Two reporters killed live on Air in Moneta, Virginia

[LadyTevar]

Broomstick forgot that the Rich rarely have to deal with Prejudice.

1. Looks matter. When applying for a job, the Poor come to interview in clothing they bought from Good Will or another second-hand store because they couldn't afford new ones. The hiring manager looks over the ill-fitting suit, and immediately his view of the person drops, as does the chance of getting the job. This goes even beyond the color of the face.

2. You are where you live. Cities, towns, even tiny hamlets have the 'Good Side" and the "Bad Side" of town. Someone from the Good Side will always be seen as better than someone from the Bad Side, because if they were Good People they'd have moved, right? This goes even if the family had first moved in when that neighborhood was the Good Side, once it slumps the family is tainted.

[TheFeniX]

It's hard to ignore the environmental factors semi-related to the social aspects. The poorer you are the more likely you have to deal with poor air-quality, visual fidelity (for lack of a better term: just look around poor neighborhoods, more graffiti, more concrete, more trash, etc), garbage noise (traffic, etc), poor nutrition. You grow up with this shit all your life and it colors your perceptions pretty heavily.

Or you could de-escalate the situation by slowly getting weapons - handguns especially - off the streets, winding down the war on drugs, and actually dealing with the issues that cause violence instead of attacking the symptoms. Instead we get idiots like you voting tough on crime and clutching their guns.

Removing handguns (or guns) is treating the symptoms: having a gun or not does not change the fact that a person needs/wants to commit a crime. It will only cause them to reevaluate what particular crimes they can commit. I don't care to start another gun control argument, but guns don't create/remove the need/want for people to eat or kill someone.

Crowding is another factor. When you pack people, especially the poor, into the projects it leads to crime. I'm not 100% sure why this causes crime, but you'll notice that population density is a major factor in determining crime rates in US cities.

The reason why poor people out in the sticks commit less crime has a lot to do with everyone knowing each other. At a certain population density, it can be assumed the person you''re victimizing can name you or a photo posted of you is unique enough to be made out by people in the surrounding area. A higher population density means there's more people in a given area that have no idea who you are. Population density means you have to travel less to find victims and you have a greater density of them when choosing who (or where) to commit crime.

It is seldom that clear cut. The Columbine shooters were targeting specific people but they also planed to blow up an entire cafeteria worth of students with pipe bombs. Which category would they fit into had they been stopped after only killing a few jocks?

They planned to detonate two propane tank bombs in the cafeteria. Had they gone off, according to the explosive expert interviewed, the roof would most likely have collapse and killed 500 people. After the bombs went off, they planned to use guns to pick off anyone running out of the school (they had split up to maximize their coverage). When the bombs failed to detonate: they met up and decided to just go in and start shooting. That's the only reason they became discriminate in their murder-spree: they were on plan b and I assume they still had some semblance of humanity left (one student was told something to the effect of "you're a good guy, leave now").

[Lagmonster]

Also remember that 'rich' is a vastly smaller group of people, and can be personally networked. Especially family connection - each city may only have one or two 'good' schools, which all the rich people's kids or their relations' kids attend, so their circle of friends becomes your circle of acquaintances, and then their kids marry other kids from the same group, keeping the circle of wagons tightly wound around a comparative handful of families.

I remember feeling genuine shock when I met someone in first year who only ate when they could afford to. Once I remember offering to get him a job somewhere, and he said no. I figured that meant he was lazy - why else would he refuse such a great opportunity? It was only with years of hindsight that I realized it would have been not worth the raise for him to drive across town when he had a time-flexible, if poorly-paying part-time job within walking distance of his place.

[Channel72]

The reason why poor people out in the sticks commit less crime has a lot to do with everyone knowing each other. At a certain population density, it can be assumed the person you''re victimizing can name you or a photo posted of you is unique enough to be made out by people in the surrounding area. A higher population density means there's more people in a given area that have no idea who you are. Population density means you have to travel less to find victims and you have a greater density of them when choosing who (or where) to commit crime.

On the other hand, lower population density means less witnesses (less likelihood of anyone being around to witness a crime), less police presence, etc.

I think poor people out in the sticks commit less (victim-involving) crimes simply because there isn't that much reason or opportunity to do so. Who are you going to kill or steal from when most people around you are as poor as you? Today, the most densely populately place in the US (New York) has lower crime than the national average, for various reasons, mostly due to increased police presence but also overall quality of life improvements in poorer neighborhoods.

[biostem]

Economic stress, chiefly the lack of (or perceived lack of) careers and upwards mobility. People don't generally join gangs and sell drugs when they aren't in dire economic straits and these professions tend to breed violence and crime. So ensuring that the lowest classes and poorest sections of cities have enough to go around through job creation or social programs will decrease crime rates.

Crowding is another factor. When you pack people, especially the poor, into the projects it leads to crime. I'm not 100% sure why this causes crime, but you'll notice that population density is a major factor in determining crime rates in US cities.

This is solely my opinion, but based on living in the 2nd/3rd largest city in the US for 15 years:

You can jam rich people in tiny shoeboxes in great density, too, but they don't start shooting each other the way poor folks do in similar densities. Here's why I think there's a difference:

1) Rich people can get the hell away from other people when they need to. Neighbors driving you crazy? Feeling stressed out? Just need some space or to look at something different? Rich people can go on vacation, even if only for a weekend get-away. Poor people can't afford to do that. The closest they can come is maybe going to visit the relatives, likely to be just as overcrowded.

2) Rich people have climate control. Crime rates go up in the summer, especially when it gets hot. Rich people don't have to get hot. In the old days they would leave the city during the heat and go someplace cooler, a summer house or cabin. They could purchase ice. These days, they invariably have air conditioning. Poor people just stay hot, they don't sleep well, they wind up chronically tired, and they get irritable. Likewise, they don't have to suffer the cold in winter. Poor people tend to live in more poorly insulated homes, might skimp on heat to save money, and so forth. If things are really bad they might be without heat in the winter. That, too, is a form of stress.

3) Rich people can pay for exterminators. Poor people are much more likely to be dealing with bug and rodent infestations on an on-going basis. Even if one family can eradicate the pests their home will just be reinfected by the neighbors' supply of vermin. You don't sleep particuarly well if critters are running across your blankets at night.

4) Rich people can afford more convenience/creature comfort. Especially tired after work one night? If you're wealthy you can go out to restaurant or order take-out. If you're really wealthy you can even have your own chef. Poor people still have to cook, or at least prepare food. Well, OK, maybe just open a bag of chips and dip, but that's nowhere near as satisfying as having a well-prepared meal. Rich people have appliances in good repair, poor people either don't have them, or are more likely to have them second-hand, or with jury-rigged repairs, or only half-functioning but kept because of the cost of replacement. Rich people have softer bed linens and towels, nicer furniture that isn't repaired with duct tape or propped up with bits of wood or brick under a busted leg. If something goes wrong in a rich residence - a pipe breaks, a switch stops working, the ceiling leaks, whatever - it gets fixed immediately. Poor people have fewer resources so maybe they can't afford an immediate fix, or can't get the landlord to act on the problem, and often have to put up with a problem or a jury-rigged solution indefinitely. The rich might not have any more space, but it's a lot nicer space.

5) The neighbors of the rich are different than the neighbors of the poor. Batshit crazy people don't usually live next to rich people, they live in the poor neighborhood. Criminals wind up in the poor neighborhood, especially if they're the violent sort. Rich people don't have to live next to the dregs of society, the grossly dysfunctional, the barking screaming mad people. No... those sorts live in the ghetto, next to the poor folks.

The result is that while the rich might be crowded they still have a materially comfortable environment and considerable control over where they live, and they can always take a break from the city. The poor are less comfortable, have little control (they might be stuck due to housing subsidy rules, or cost of rent, or subjected to an abusive or neglectful landlord), and are not able to take a break.

Which group do you think is more stressed out and more likely to act out?

I'll grant all your hypotheses, but then ask this very simple question: On the most basic level, do poorer people know right from wrong? No matter how irritated you may be, is it ever justified to shoot at someone else over a verbal disagreement, or some perceived verbal or non-physical slight?

See, my problem is that many of these cases seem to be expressed as "People shouldn't resort to violence, but... [insert list of economic or social conditions here]"

If we are to treat all people equally, in terms of responsibility and mental capability, (I'm talking basic stuff, like knowing that shooting someone is wrong), then such conditions are still no excuse to act in these ways.

[Channel72]

Apparently, you're under this naive delusion that humans don't have tolerance thresholds. We all have tolerance thresholds, that, when sufficiently exceeded, result in insanity and violence.

[biostem]

Apparently, you're under this naive delusion that humans don't have tolerance thresholds. We all have tolerance thresholds, that, when sufficiently exceeded, result in insanity and violence.

No, I absolutely accept that we do. Now, is that *ever* an excuse to go off and attack other people? There is a fundamental difference between a person who, sensing a situation escalating, removes themselves from said situation, vs one who remains there and either commits a violent act or becomes the target of one.

[Jub]

Apparently, you're under this naive delusion that humans don't have tolerance thresholds. We all have tolerance thresholds, that, when sufficiently exceeded, result in insanity and violence.

No, I absolutely accept that we do. Now, is that *ever* an excuse to go off and attack other people? There is a fundamental difference between a person who, sensing a situation escalating, removes themselves from said situation, vs one who remains there and either commits a violent act or becomes the target of one.

If you're living in the projects/slums you really can't just remove yourself from the situation. You can't afford to live elsewhere, can't afford to miss work at one of your multiple jobs to de-stress, and really don't have community resources to turn to. Please explain how a poor family, probably single mother because the father is in jail, can afford to removed themselves from the situation?

[biostem]

Apparently, you're under this naive delusion that humans don't have tolerance thresholds. We all have tolerance thresholds, that, when sufficiently exceeded, result in insanity and violence.

No, I absolutely accept that we do. Now, is that *ever* an excuse to go off and attack other people? There is a fundamental difference between a person who, sensing a situation escalating, removes themselves from said situation, vs one who remains there and either commits a violent act or becomes the target of one.

If you're living in the projects/slums you really can't just remove yourself from the situation. You can't afford to live elsewhere, can't afford to miss work at one of your multiple jobs to de-stress, and really don't have community resources to turn to. Please explain how a poor family, probably single mother because the father is in jail, can afford to removed themselves from the situation?

Unfortunately, the answer is not a short-term one, and may very well require removing children from that environment, (as loathe as I am to say this). Perhaps some forward-thinking people or organizations may be willing to undertake efforts to improve these housing projects, but I can't see many people getting behind investing in things like air conditioners for housing projects.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I think children have every right to be with loving parents - but short of permanently stationing police/security in these neighborhoods, and mandating the people that live within be disarmed, how do you break the cycle? At what point do you stop focusing on the current generaion, and instead apply your efforts toward the upcoming one?

[Jub]

Unfortunately, the answer is not a short-term one, and may very well require removing children from that environment, (as loathe as I am to say this). Perhaps some forward-thinking people or organizations may be willing to undertake efforts to improve these housing projects, but I can't see many people getting behind investing in things like air conditioners for housing projects.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I think children have every right to be with loving parents - but short of permanently stationing police/security in these neighborhoods, and mandating the people that live within be disarmed, how do you break the cycle? At what point do you stop focusing on the current generaion, and instead apply your efforts toward the upcoming one?

You're a short-sighted moron willing to jump to loathsome steps without given the situation any serious thought. If you want to fix things first you need to end the war on drugs, increase spending on health care, low-income housing, and proper welfare that doesn't attempt to starve out the poor. Take notice of how none of these steps involve stealing children from families like your monstrous ass is suggesting.

[Broomstick]

I'll grant all your hypotheses, but then ask this very simple question: On the most basic level, do poorer people know right from wrong? No matter how irritated you may be, is it ever justified to shoot at someone else over a verbal disagreement, or some perceived verbal or non-physical slight?

No, it's not justified, but whereas in a rural environment you have actual space where two arguing people can put actual distance between each other in a densely populated urban environment getting away from each other can be more difficult. Also, there is a higher percentage of dysfunctional people, some of whom have difficulty controlling themselves or who have abnormally low tolerance for friction with others.

This presents a problem to the mentally normal, law-abiding, moral poor person who is being attacked by a deranged neighbor.

[Lonestar]

Crowding is another factor. When you pack people, especially the poor, into the projects it leads to crime. I'm not 100% sure why this causes crime, but you'll notice that population density is a major factor in determining crime rates in US cities.

"The Projects" aren't really as common in the US anymore as they were 20-30 years ago, precisely because police can't really patrol dense apartment towers like they can driving around a street. Nowadays private property landowners get money from HUD for subsidized housing, and some locations(like my county) require that a certain percentage of new housing developments be low-income housing.

[Broomstick]

A lot of the old "projects" have been torn down and no longer exist.

[Channel72]

Apparently, you're under this naive delusion that humans don't have tolerance thresholds. We all have tolerance thresholds, that, when sufficiently exceeded, result in insanity and violence.

No, I absolutely accept that we do. Now, is that *ever* an excuse to go off and attack other people?

It's not an excuse before the law, if that's what you mean - but it may persuade a judge or jury to apply mitigating circumstances during sentencing. Moreover, regardless of whether it's an "excuse" in any context, it's still a reality of human behavior, and therefore a problem that needs to be solved - a problem which is severely exacerbated by poor living conditions.

[TheFeniX]

On the other hand, lower population density means less witnesses (less likelihood of anyone being around to witness a crime), less police presence, etc.

Which is why, at least from what I've seen, property crime isn't really affect too much (per capita) by population density, but by economics. Poor people out in the sticks burgle and are burglarized just as much as poor people in the city. The murder rate and other violent crime (where witnesses are a given) seem to be much lower, but my data was from around 2006.

Murder is always less about witnesses and more about motive. Rarely do people murder without reason. So, your list of suspects is usually narrower in a small town than a big city. Would make sense you're less likely to kill someone when you're likely to be at the top of the suspect list. Also less likely to mug someone when there's a good chance there's only a few "bad eggs" in the area and you're one of them. But property crimes are a whole other issue.

I think poor people out in the sticks commit less (victim-involving) crimes simply because there isn't that much reason or opportunity to do so. Who are you going to kill or steal from when most people around you are as poor as you? Today, the most densely populately place in the US (New York) has lower crime than the national average, for various reasons, mostly due to increased police presence but also overall quality of life improvements in poorer neighborhoods.

You'd be surprised. The idea that "poor people have nothing worth stealing" doesn't hold with statistics: poor people are victimized, in all areas, much more than people with money. Likely because people with more money have better means to defend themselves and their property and not with violent means. You also don't look nearly as suspicious casing poor neighborhoods than upper-class ones.

Please don't misinterpret what I'm saying - I think children have every right to be with loving parents - but short of permanently stationing police/security in these neighborhoods, and mandating the people that live within be disarmed, how do you break the cycle? At what point do you stop focusing on the current generaion, and instead apply your efforts toward the upcoming one?

Poor kids with poor parents vs poor kids dumped off into the already over-burdened foster care system means the same thing: a new generation of kids poor with few chances for upward mobility. You don't need to place a cop in every home, you need to give people a reason to not turn to crime to support themselves. You do this through safety nets and job opportunities, not through kidnapping.