I'm guessing most of these are gang and/or drug related. Not many involve random strangers and/or the general public. If that was the case, there would be great reason for concern.
Does that count include the stabbing death on the westside at 4:00 AM this morning?
Yep. And I think that was in Frank's zone.
I love the PR campaign to "explain" away homicides. "These were 'bad' people, behave and there's no way you could be involved in a violent, possibly murderous crime." Such . Apparently Indianapolis has been jealous of Chicago's status as murder capital of the country and decided to step it up some. Good for Indy. But I still won't be visiting.
Exactly right. I don't see how truth is being called PR spin here. I have never been involved in drugs, gangs, or any other criminal activity. Therefore, the odds of a whacked out meth-head or dealer coming to my house to kill me is VERY low. Any time someone is murdered it's not a good situation, but I'd rather criminals get killed versus law abiding citizens.That's not what anyone said. What was said was the truth. Involve yourself in criminal gang activity and/or the narcotics trade and you significantly increase your risk of meeting a violent end.
That's not what anyone said. What was said was the truth. Involve yourself in criminal gang activity and/or the narcotics trade and you significantly increase your risk of meeting a violent end.
Well, obviously. This simple fact doesn't really need said, save to try to hammer home the point and to minimize these deaths: they don't really count, they were 'bad' people.
As though decent people need to be implored not to be criminals, and as though it would have any effect on those who chose to do so!
As an Indianapolis resident, I do not feel less safe after this rash of homocides, for all the reasons we stated above about the non-randomness. That is obvious.My point is that violence is violence, random or not. The placation of Mr. & Mrs. John Q. Public is what is , not the obvious statement that being a criminal drastically increases one's chances of being involved in violence. Saying, 'oh, well this is targeted violence' does nothing to reduce the actual crime rate, it only specifies who the targets were for that particular crime, which says nothing about future crimes or anything at all in fact regarding Indianapolis' safety - or lack thereof. It's a bit disingenuous to say 'Well, these don't count, this was targeted, these were bad people and if you're not a criminal this sort of thing is less likely to happen to you' when such violence in future may not be at all so targeted. It's a feel-good placation measure, not a state-of-the-city address or a true assessment of violent crime in Indianapolis. It's public-relations placation through minimization of these deaths.
this^^As an Indianapolis resident, I do not feel less safe after this rash of homocides, for all the reasons we stated above about the non-randomness. That is obvious.
I do feel bad there is a segment of our community that feels the need to lead the life they lead. That is not healthy for the longevity of our city. Things need to change.