He writes:
It seems our new chief of police is getting a lesson about the perception of crime in Milwaukee.
Many people believe violent crime is a big problem in this city, even if it's never happened to them personally. When violent crime does happen, it's perceived as more of a problem in some places than in others.
For example, many of the homicides in Milwaukee happen in specific ZIP codes where gunfire is common. These are not the parts of town that Chief Edward Flynn has to worry about in terms of perceptions.
Everybody already thinks those areas are dangerous; when someone gets killed there, few people are really all that surprised.
But when a local business executive is killed after a night on the town in Walker's Point, many people perceive the problem as getting out of hand.
I am so sick of hearing about the "crime is rare" crap.
This statement by Kane is stunningly lame: "Many people believe violent crime is a big problem in this city, even if it's never happened to them personally."
WHAT?
In other words, unless something happens to you, why view it as a big problem? If you're not touched personally by something, stop getting upset about it. It doesn't become a problem until it happens to you.
That's not exactly the most socially responsible approach to take.
...When a scary incident like [Vic Milford's murder happens] in a neighborhood known for its growing nightlife attractions - good restaurants, trendy bars and art galleries - it puts a damper on the preferred ambience of the location. Nobody goes out for a night on the town expecting a tragedy. At the very least, they expect to get to and from their cars safely.
That usually happens in Walker's Point, but now the perception is changed.
Why has perception changed?
Could it be because there was such a senseless murder in Walker's Point? The fact is reality changed when Milford was murdered.
...Milford's senseless death became a way for some to speculate about whether safety concerns could influence the decision on where to build a new corporate location for a combined Miller and Molson Coors. Seems to me, a random street crime shouldn't be a major factor in a multibillion-dollar decision.
But then again, that's the danger with perceptions.
What Flynn has learned is that the perception of crime in Walker's Point - or Avenues West, Historic Concordia, Brewers Hill, Washington Heights, or any number of Milwaukee neighborhoods with fanciful names that suggest a desire for serenity - is more important than the reality.
What Kane HASN'T learned is that citizens are reacting to reality.
I'd like to know where Kane draws the line between "no big deal" crime and "problem" crime worthy of perceiving.
No one in their right mind can sit back and not be troubled by Milford's death.
It's not an overreaction to demand that such violence not be tolerated.
Some readers have pointed out - again - that people don't get as upset about a death in the central city as they do about a murder in Walker's Point. I submit that until murders in Walker's Point happen with the same frequency as they do in the central city, the ratio of attention will never be fair.
Nor will the perceptions.
BS.
That's so unfair. People do get upset about deaths in the central city.
People are horrified by the killing of innocents in any area of the city. To suggest otherwise is an inaccurate representation.
Kane paints Milwaukeeans outside of the central city as uncaring, as if they consider lives lost in the central city to be of less value than others.
That's a terrible accusation to make.
That's the reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment