Murder Rate In London...

[Teallaura]

Going back to the article, I can see why the police have some work to do - the altercation supposedly took place around 12:40 AM but the deceased was found quite a distance away nearly two hours later. The eye witness stated his confederate was trying to get him into a car - which means they were walking around all that time? With a stab wound?

British law, according to the article, is a bit vague on what 'reasonable force' means. Depending on what they found in the house, this might not be so clear cut. Did the guy give chase and then the stabbing occurred - if so, that's a violation of the British statutes. Did the idiot get stabbed as described but try to walk away rather than call an ambulance? Did the confederate talk the deceased into hiding longer than was medically wise? Any number of possibilities but the police do have a responsibility to investigate the person who actually did the injury. Given all the forensics attention outside the house, they are either suspicious of the story or trying to prove it.

In the US if you shoot someone, expect to be a suspect and possibly spend a night in jail as you are being cleared. Yes, you can legally defend yourself but no, it's not assumed that when the other person is dead you are necessarily telling the truth about the incident. Even in the house, there are circumstances where you are not permitted to use lethal force (a surrendered suspect, for example).

Crook or not, someone died - it's necessary to investigate. What surprises me is how quickly everyone is castigating the authorities here - and how quickly people are taking sides. The cops could be in the wrong; British law could be that weird; the guy could be telling the truth; the guy could be a murderer; the other guy could have contributed - and it's way too early and with too little information to know which, if any, is correct.

[Sparko]

Going back to the article, I can see why the police have some work to do - the altercation supposedly took place around 12:40 AM but the deceased was found quite a distance away nearly two hours later. The eye witness stated his confederate was trying to get him into a car - which means they were walking around all that time? With a stab wound?

It says he died 3 hours later, not that he was found 3 hours later. And if the home owner called the police at midnight, then he did his duty. He can't go tracking the guy after he escapes from the house.

[Teallaura]

It says he died 3 hours later, not that he was found 3 hours later. And if the home owner called the police at midnight, then he did his duty. He can't go tracking the guy after he escapes from the house.

Conceded - but there's still an issue with the distance traveled so yeah, he wasn't could right away.

It's still too early to say exactly what happened.

[Sparko]

Conceded - but there's still an issue with the distance traveled so yeah, he wasn't could right away.

It's still too early to say exactly what happened.

The way I understand is that the unwounded guy ran away when the other guy got stabbed. The old guy called the police and the stabbed guy ran away and was later seen in another neighborhood trying to get into the van that the first guy went and got, but then the van drove away and after the police/ambulance were called there and picked the guy up, he died later in the hospital.

[Starlight]

One way, in fact a very effective way to formulate policy is to figure out who is committing the crimes. If there's a specific demographic that is more likely to commit violence...

Males aged 15 to 40. Are you suggesting incarcerating all men until they are 40 in order to reduce crime?

like London's rising Muslim population

By all accounts there seems to have been a huge rise in right-wing hate crimes against Muslims.

[Mountain Man]

Males aged 15 to 40. Are you suggesting incarcerating all men until they are 40 in order to reduce crime?

Why, no, I didn't suggest that straw man at all. Surely someone as clever and world-wise as you can come up with a more meaningful way of determining who is most likely to be criminally inclined.

By all accounts there seems to have been a huge rise in right-wing hate crimes against Muslims.

"All accounts" = liberal propaganda.

Source: Britain's real hate crime scandal

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/...crime-scandal/

© Copyright Original Source

Source: FBI Stats Debunk DC Media�s �Muslim Backlash� Myth

(December 2015) Here are the most recent facts, per the F.B.I.http://www.breitbart.com/big-journal...backlash-myth/

© Copyright Original Source

[Roy]

By all accounts there seems to have been a huge rise in right-wing hate crimes against Muslims.

Source: FBI Stats Debunk DC Media�s �Muslim Backlash� Myth

(December 2015) Here are the most recent facts, per the F.B.I.

© Copyright Original Source

Trying to use statistics for the USA from 2015 to argue against a rise of right-wing hate crimes in the UK in 2018? Clean up on f3.

[Starlight]

Surely someone as clever and world-wise as you can come up with a more meaningful way of determining who is most likely to be criminally inclined.

Being male, 15-40 in age, and poor seem to be the biggest risk factors.

Immigrant Muslims in the UK do not appear to be making a big contribution to their crime statistics. While the UK government does not collect data on the religion of criminals, it does collect it on race, and we can fairly reasonably assume that in the UK the vast majority of Muslims are of 'mixed' or 'black' race and the vast majority of 'white' people are not Muslim (Wiki says: "In terms of national heritage, the largest groups of British Muslims are Pakistanis and Bangladeshis. Smaller groups are Indians, Arabs, Kurds, Turks and Africans."). The 2016 government statistics on race and crime show that ~75% of both the arrests that year and of the prison population in that year were 'white' people. We can hence conclude that the vast majority of crime in the UK is done by non-Muslims.

It appears the recording guidelines were changed in 2014. The increase in recorded hate crimes from 2016 to 2017 is therefore unlikely to be only a product of a change in guidelines in a previous year. The UK govt report says "The increase over the last year is thought to reflect both a genuine rise in hate crime around the time of the EU referendum and also due to ongoing improvements in crime recording by the police."

[Mountain Man]

Trying to use statistics for the USA from 2015 to argue against a rise of right-wing hate crimes in the UK in 2018? Clean up on f3.

Nice job ignoring the article I had posted just before it which pertained to the UK. I included the second source simply to show that it wasn't a phenomenon unique to the UK.

It's not for nothing that you're known around tWeb as the King of Nitpickers.

[Mountain Man]

Being male, 15-40 in age, and poor seem to be the biggest risk factors.

Surely you can narrow it even further than that.

...the UK government does not collect data on the religion of criminals...

I did notice that, which begs the question: what are they trying to hide?

As far as "race" is concerned, that's a very fluid definition in the hands of liberals.

[Roy]

Nice job ignoring the article I had posted just before it which pertained to the UK. I included the second source simply to show that it wasn't a phenomenon unique to the UK.

It's not for nothing that you're known around tWeb as the King of Nitpickers.

Noting that your source refers to the wrong continent is not nit-picking.

You also don't understand - or more likely, blindly accepted breitbart's spin - that a single dataset cannot possibly show whether hate crimes against Muslims are increasing or decreasing. Checking the years before and after (trivial, but apparently beyond your capability) shows that there has been a rise in hate crimes against Muslims in the US:

2012: 155 - 11.6% of 1340 anti-religion crimes
2013: 167 - 13.7% of 1223 anti-religion crimes
2014: 183 - 16.1% of 1140 anti-religion crimes
2015: 307 - 21.9% of 1402 anti-religion crimes

Your own source shows that hate crimes against Muslims in the US doubled, but you're too lazy, gullible and stupid to notice.

I suppose pointing out that your source's source shows the exact opposite of what you claimed is nit-picking too.

[Mountain Man]

Noting that your source refers to the wrong continent is not nit-picking.

It didn't refer to the wrong continent. As I said, I included it to show that the phenomenon wasn't unique to the UK.

You also don't understand - or more likely, blindly accepted breitbart's spin - that a single dataset cannot possibly show whether hate crimes against Muslims are increasing or decreasing. Checking the years before and after (trivial, but apparently beyond your capability) shows that there has been a rise in hate crimes against Muslims in the US:

2012: 155 - 11.6% of 1340 anti-religion crimes
2013: 167 - 13.7% of 1223 anti-religion crimes
2014: 183 - 16.1% of 1140 anti-religion crimes
2015: 307 - 21.9% of 1402 anti-religion crimes

Your own source shows that hate crimes against Muslims in the US doubled, but you're too lazy, gullible and stupid to notice.

I suppose pointing out that your source's source shows the exact opposite of what you claimed is nit-picking too.

It doesn't change the fact that less than a quarter of "hate crimes" -- which is such a tenuous thing to begin with; like the UK, many US law enforcement agencies base it on victim perception rather than on any thing that can be factually proven, but I digress -- less than a quarter of "hate crimes" are against Muslims with Jews being by far the most targeted group.

[Roy]

It doesn't change the fact that less than a quarter of "hate crimes" ... are against Muslims with Jews being by far the most targeted group.

It doesn't change the fact that bananas are yellow either, which is also not what you were claiming.

[Mountain Man]

It doesn't change the fact that bananas are yellow either, which is also not what you were claiming.

You don't even seem to know what I was claiming.

I also like how you cut out the part of my post which read '["hate crime"] is such a tenuous thing to begin with; like the UK, many US law enforcement agencies base it on victim perception rather than on any thing that can be factually proven'. Maybe because that doesn't fit your narrative? Could it be that more Muslims feel victimized because liberal propaganda is telling them to feel victimized?

[Littlejoe]

No. And gullible.

hyperbolic..yes!

Gullible? No. Sorry your so sarcastically impaired...