StreetGangs.Com forum on gangs around the world

Does anyone know east la murder rate for 2003 and 2004?

the hollenbeck division which covers the neighborhoods of el sereno, boyle heights, n lincoln heights had 30 murders in 2003 with a population of about 200,000. the vast majority were gang related. its all time high was 97 in 1992.

hollenbeck homicides

1996 - 41
1997 - 41
1998 - 42
1999 - 37
2000 - 32
2001 - 36
2002 - 38
2003 - 30

hollenbeck has had a huge drop in the murder rate. more than 75%. in the early 90s it had a murder rate of more than 60 per 100,000 n now in 03 it was 15 per 100,000.

sounds like vato's is calm'n down out there huh?

awhile back i posted the homicide rate for hollenbeck but i made an error for 2002.

2000 - 32
2001 - 36
2002 - 49
2003 - 30

if thats they murder rates then that makes lancaster 10 times worst then east la lol

east LA never had a really high murder rate, at least not for LA anyway. Usually lower than most gang areas in socal.

K1LLJOY wrote:if thats they murder rates then that makes lancaster 10 times worst then east la lol

I guess east LA aint that hard even with all those gangs that are all deep.

SanFernando88 wrote:

K1LLJOY wrote:if thats they murder rates then that makes lancaster 10 times worst then east la lol

I guess east LA aint that hard even with all those gangs that are all deep.

You newed to understand the East Side before you make assumptions like "i guess east L.A. ain't that hard". It a different mindset from other L.A. areas, in the sense that there is certain unwritten guidelines for when a vato is marked and gets smoked. Too many people from all the varrios know people from all the ES Varrios, it's like one huge family that fights with each other but for the most part the beef is kept in check because one fock up can end up costing a lot of lives.

lonewolf wrote:

SanFernando88 wrote:

K1LLJOY wrote:if thats they murder rates then that makes lancaster 10 times worst then east la lol

I guess east LA aint that hard even with all those gangs that are all deep.

You need to understand the "true" East Side before you make assumptions like "i guess east L.A. ain't that hard".
It is a different mindset from other L.A. areas, in the sense that there is certain unwritten guidelines for when a vato is marked and gets smoked. Too many people from all the varrios know people from all the ES Varrios, it's like one huge family that fights with each other but for the most part the beef is kept in check because one fock up can end up costing a lot of lives.

I don't have "edit" so i had to correct by re-quote ^ ^ ^ ^

you got a point ther and i would think of them being on a self defense level to.

[quote="SanFernando88"][quote="K1LLJOY"]if thats they murder rates then that makes lancaster 10 times worst then east la lol[/quote]

I guess east LA aint that hard even with all those gangs that are all deep.[/quote]

sets have already settle their territorys is the conquest of land that are raisin' the murda rate .east los had gang before anyotha gang land ...they are established no need to pill caps no more people know who's who

i would like to make a few points here cuz i do know a little bit about east LA.
1. east LA isnt that bad as whole but some areas like boyle heights are bad
2. and about lancaster being 10 times worse. south LAs worst parts the southeast n 77th street divisions are 3 times worse. i know it was an exagerration but still i dont think lancaster is that much worse than east LA.
3. east LA like all of LA had an extremely high murder rate in the early 90s that got real low during the late 90s. most of LA saw its murder rate soar again since the year 2000 but east LAs murder rate has stayed about the same.
4. east LA gangs are more defensive

You know what, that's good the murder rate is slowing down in East Los. I wish the murder rate were 0 but that's just my wishful thinking. ELA has been there and done that 100 times over and has no need to prove itself. East Los is like a Godfather who is teaching the "kids" to not try to be like us. Some people are stubborn though. They don't need to bang and they do it anyway to try to prove themselves. lol Know what I'm saying, there's only so much you could do though.

PEACE!

lonewolf wrote:

SanFernando88 wrote:

K1LLJOY wrote:if thats they murder rates then that makes lancaster 10 times worst then east la lol

I guess east LA aint that hard even with all those gangs that are all deep.

You newed to understand the East Side before you make assumptions like "i guess east L.A. ain't that hard". It a different mindset from other L.A. areas, in the sense that there is certain unwritten guidelines for when a vato is marked and gets smoked. Too many people from all the varrios know people from all the ES Varrios, it's like one huge family that fights with each other but for the most part the beef is kept in check because one fock up can end up costing a lot of lives.

Good Point

chupon106 wrote:i would like to make a few points here because i do know a little bit about east LA.
1. east LA isnt that bad as whole but some areas like boyle heights are bad
2. and about lancaster being 10 times worse. south LAs worst parts the southeast n 77th street divisions are 3 times worse. i know it was an exagerration but still i dont think lancaster is that much worse than east LA.
3. east LA like all of LA had an extremely high murder rate in the early 90s that got real low during the late 90s. most of LA saw its murder rate soar again since the year 2000 but east LAs murder rate has stayed about the same.
4. east LA gangs are more defensive

whats the population of Lancaster and the population of E LA. The string never discussed "murder" rate. Plain numbers does not equal to rate. Lets figure this out correctly and find out the addresses.

alonso wrote:

chupon106 wrote:i would like to make a few points here because i do know a little bit about east LA.
1. east LA isnt that bad as whole but some areas like boyle heights are bad
2. and about lancaster being 10 times worse. south LAs worst parts the southeast n 77th street divisions are 3 times worse. i know it was an exagerration but still i dont think lancaster is that much worse than east LA.
3. east LA like all of LA had an extremely high murder rate in the early 90s that got real low during the late 90s. most of LA saw its murder rate soar again since the year 2000 but east LAs murder rate has stayed about the same.
4. east LA gangs are more defensive

whats the population of Lancaster and the population of E LA. The string never discussed "murder" rate. Plain numbers does not equal to rate. Lets figure this out correctly and find out the addresses.

heres the pop and murder rate of Lancaster
http://lancasterca.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm

http://lancasterca.areaconnect.com/statistics.htm

ok, the murder rate in Lancaster, CA is 5.6 murder per 100,000 people in 2002. Now who can figure out the murder rate for East LA. That should be easy, How many people were killed in East LA in 2001, 2002, or 2003? Then someone figure out the population of East LA. and boom, there is your rate and that's the true measure of which place is more plagued my murders.

chupon106 wrote:the hollenbeck division which covers the neighborhoods of el sereno, boyle heights, n lincoln heights had 30 murders in 2003 with a population of about 200,000. the vast majority were gang related. its all time high was 97 in 1992.

hollenbeck homicides

1996 - 41
1997 - 41
1998 - 42
1999 - 37
2000 - 32
2001 - 36
2002 - 38
2003 - 30

I see that chupon has some interesting numbers. The murder rate in Hollenbeck would have been 15 murders per 100,000 people in 2003, so that means that Hollenbeck is plagued with almost 3 times as many murders than Lancaster. East LA though is not part of Hollenbeck, it is right next to it to the east.

dont all hollenbeck gangs claim eastside?

chupon106 wrote:dont all hollenbeck gangs claim eastside?

wtf, we are talking about murder rates here. How the hell do you just come out of left field asking about "eastside" where this string is about murder rates? The stupidity of some people.

what do u mean "out of left field"?? i was responding to the post right above me!! i gave the murder rate for hollenbeck, then u said hollenbeck wasnt in east LA, so i asked dont all hollenbeck gangs claim eastside. i wasnt gonna start a whole another thread to ask u about that. so i dont know how its coming "out of left field".

chupon106 wrote:what do u mean "out of left field"?? i was responding to the post right above me!! i gave the murder rate for hollenbeck, then u said hollenbeck wasnt in east LA, so i asked dont all hollenbeck gangs claim eastside. i wasnt gonna start a whole another thread to ask u about that. so i dont know how its coming "out of left field".

i am not clear how determing if all gangs in hollenbeck claim eastside has absolutely anything to do with murder rate.

East LA is part of unincorporated LA County. Hollenbeck covers the Boyle Heights area which is the City of LA. If someone is trying to measure muderrate in Hollenbeck, that is seperate from East LA.

Again, your question has nothing to do with this conversation.

alexalonso wrote:ok, the murder rate in Lancaster, CA is 5.6 murder per 100,000 people in 2002. Now who can figure out the murder rate for East LA. That should be easy, How many people were killed in East LA in 2001, 2002, or 2003? Then someone figure out the population of East LA. and boom, there is your rate and that's the true measure of which place is more plagued my murders.

The population of East LA was 124,283 in 2000, and with about 30 murder per year, the murder rate is 24.1 people per 100,000 people so there is no doubt that East LA has a high murder rate than Lancaster. Also remember that East LA does not cover the Boyle Heights neighborhood in LAPD's Hollenbeck. That is the next community over.

alexalonso wrote:

alexalonso wrote:ok, the murder rate in Lancaster, CA is 5.6 murder per 100,000 people in 2002. Now who can figure out the murder rate for East LA. That should be easy, How many people were killed in East LA in 2001, 2002, or 2003? Then someone figure out the population of East LA. and boom, there is your rate and that's the true measure of which place is more plagued my murders.

The population of East LA was 124,283 in 2000, and with about 30 murder per year, the murder rate is 24.1 people per 100,000 people so there is no doubt that East LA has a high murder rate than Lancaster. Also remember that East LA does not cover the Boyle Heights neighborhood in LAPD's Hollenbeck. That is the next community over.

yeah if you're gonna talk in general terms i'd say east la still qualifies as a dangerous town. And with that said alot of cities with low crime rates still have their problem spots. Just because a city has a homicide rate slightly lower than the average doesn't mean you can walk around tellin people their town is full of punks.

I notice most the cities that experienced huge spikes in murder rate in the last few years are because the gang dynamics in the area, since drugs are constant now. What I mean by that is territories pushing on each other or new threats. Up in Oakland and Salinas it was north and south clashing real hard as surenos built a presence there. In Stockton and Sac it was both norte/sur and the surge of asian streetgangs like the cambodians. I would imagine East la turf is well established at this point and damn near the entire population is latino, while population and race changes have occurred heavily up here. Like one guy said there's not much reason to tool and set trip as much since no one is about to take out the old East LA varrios.

Not to say that doesn't go on in LA still. From what I understand, Compton's population is become increasingly latino and asians have become more prominent in most areas.

you dont know if a community has a high crime rate because gangs are there OR if gangs are there because the community has a high crime rate.

I would say that gangs have a small impact on crime rates in America, infact some of the cities with the highest crime rates in American are not cities that are known for traditional street gangs.

If you watch too much news, you might not realize this.

LA has more gangs than just about any other ghetto in America, but it is not even in the top 15 of worst ghettos or most violent ghettos in America. So there are other reasons.

alexalonso wrote:you dont know if a community has a high crime rate because gangs are there OR if gangs are there because the community has a high crime rate.

I would say that gangs have a small impact on crime rates in America, infact some of the cities with the highest crime rates in American are not cities that are known for traditional street gangs.

If you watch too much news, you might not realize this.

LA has more gangs than just about any other ghetto in America, but it is not even in the top 15 of worst ghettos or most violent ghettos in America. So there are other reasons.

That's true, but then there's cities that have murder and high crime solely because of gangs. Like Salinas, CA. Oakland could attribute their skyrocketing murder rates to gangs in 08-09.

There's alot of cities that fit what you said though. I know cities like Detroit and Memphis, which have less gangs than LA, still have higher crime and murder rates. So I feel like the number of gangs isn't as important as the role the city itself plays in drug trade.

I mean if its not alot of gangs killing each other than it has to be something else, just an average number of gangs fighting for control of a narcotics hub? Or maybe even organized crime syndicates battling each other? Drug trafficking seems to be the main culprit when you talk about cities like that.

Injunctions also have an impact, plus federal investigations/sting operations/rico indictments. It doesn't prevent a gang from existing but it deters a good amount of criminal activity done by the gang. I know LA has plenty of injunctions. So the gangs are all there but the heavier consequences probably makes them lose the hair trigger.

Oakland has always had a high crime rate, before the gang culture took shape there, so I would argue that the social conditions in Oakland, that goes back decades, has had a high crime rate and murder rate with little to do with gangs. On the surface it may not look like that, but if you look at it historically you will see that gangs are not the driving factor in violence and crime in Oakland.

alexalonso wrote:Oakland has always had a high crime rate, before the gang culture took shape there, so I would argue that the social conditions in Oakland, that goes back decades, has had a high crime rate and murder rate with little to do with gangs. On the surface it may not look like that, but if you look at it historically you will see that gangs are not the driving factor in violence and crime in Oakland.

Alright maybe that's how it is in Oakland, but I don't think I'm naive in saying gangs are a major vessel of significant rising of murder rates or violent crime in most cities, or is the sole existing cause of murder. Hence why I mentioned it being largest factor in rising murder for some towns in recent years. There's a few towns in california that have seen this, the most recent I've heard of being Half Moon Bay, a relatively safe town with low poverty levels that has seen spikes in violent crime due to the manifestation of sureno and norteno sets.