Newly released data reveals no resolution for families of more than 750 homicide victims. Police refused to release homicide clearance data, so we sued to find out.
I see you do not understand that by “down,” I am speaking historically and not arbitrarily “in the last three years.” The graph with #5 goes back to 1993. The downward trend is clear. I’m not sure if you’re being pedantic or deliberately obtuse.
Besides which, the claim of “insane violent crime rates” is your contention, and you have provided no definition or source for this notion.
I don’t feel the need to keep engaging with you on this subject. You seem to take pride in missing the forest for the trees. Have a nice night.
I see you do not understand that by “down,” I am speaking historically and not arbitrarily “in the last three years.”
Oh, so you’re comparing this last year to…what? You need some sort of finite time period, no? Or are you comparing rates to as long as humanity existed? To be fair, adam and eve, there was no violent crimes. First one was Cain and Able, so you’d be wrong in that instance too.
The graph with #5 goes back to the 1980s. The downward trend is clear. I’m not sure if you’re being pedantic or deliberately obtuse.
Well if you’re using that as your gauge, then police killings are also down, see figure 3, the same figure you refereed me to before. Which is it? Do you want to compare police killings from 2015 to now and violent crime rates over the last 100 years? That doesn’t make sense, it seems like you’re the one arbitrarily choosing time periods.
You’re the one comparing these two, you gotta be consistent. You can’t change your metrics simply because you don’t like they way they turn out.
I don’t feel the need to keep engaging with you on this subject. You seem to take pride in missing the forest for the trees. Have a nice night.
That’s a bummer, our last messages we were a bit closer to understanding, but then this message it seemed you lost all direction of your argument. Or maybe because you realized that you were arguing a point that contradicts itself if you have to be consistent.
I see you do not understand that by “down,” I am speaking historically and not arbitrarily “in the last three years.” The graph with #5 goes back to 1993. The downward trend is clear. I’m not sure if you’re being pedantic or deliberately obtuse.
Besides which, the claim of “insane violent crime rates” is your contention, and you have provided no definition or source for this notion.
I don’t feel the need to keep engaging with you on this subject. You seem to take pride in missing the forest for the trees. Have a nice night.
Oh, so you’re comparing this last year to…what? You need some sort of finite time period, no? Or are you comparing rates to as long as humanity existed? To be fair, adam and eve, there was no violent crimes. First one was Cain and Able, so you’d be wrong in that instance too.
Well if you’re using that as your gauge, then police killings are also down, see figure 3, the same figure you refereed me to before. Which is it? Do you want to compare police killings from 2015 to now and violent crime rates over the last 100 years? That doesn’t make sense, it seems like you’re the one arbitrarily choosing time periods.
You’re the one comparing these two, you gotta be consistent. You can’t change your metrics simply because you don’t like they way they turn out.
That’s a bummer, our last messages we were a bit closer to understanding, but then this message it seemed you lost all direction of your argument. Or maybe because you realized that you were arguing a point that contradicts itself if you have to be consistent.