Minnesota assasination thread

superrific said:
You said 1-5%. I was giving real statistics. I don't think I can actually evaluate whether 37% is decent, because it really depends on the difficulty of the problem. I've given exams where the mean was 40-45% and thus 37% would be a C+ or B- (in a system where B is the median grade, as many law schools do). It wasn't because my students were idiots. It's because the exam was really hard.

Without being knowledgeable about investigations and criminology more generally, I'm loathe to judge.
Click to expand...
1-5% is the usually accepted number of violent crimes that end with a conviction. it is admittedly inflammatory, because it gets cut in half by the ~50% of violent crimes that aren't reported, which police obviously cannot be expected to solve, and also does not include instances where the perpetrator is killed on the scene or takes some sort of deal. it's still ridiculous to compare policing to medicine, imo.

Also, FWIW, it's "loath," not "loathe." I'm not usually one to correct message board grammar, but i know you're a stickler for these things.
 
akillesheel said:
1-5% is the usually accepted number of violent crimes that end with a conviction. it is admittedly inflammatory, because it gets cut in half by the ~50% of violent crimes that aren't reported, which police obviously cannot be expected to solve, and also does not include instances where the perpetrator is killed on the scene or takes some sort of deal. it's still ridiculous to compare policing to medicine, imo.

Also, FWIW, it's "loath," not "loathe." I'm not usually one to correct message board grammar, but i know you're a stickler for these things.
Click to expand...
You are right -- I confused those words. It wasn't even a typo. I meant to type loathe. It was a conscious mistake. Does having made that mistake make me a worse poster? It does not. Does it bother me in the slightest? Nope. It was just a mistake. I've learned something here. A small thing, but something. Thank you for pointing it out and I wish other people would respond more constructively when they make mistakes.

Does that 1-5% exclude guilty pleas? Because there is no way there's an arrested suspect in 37% of cases, and that level of convictions. Even if you double it to account for the ones not reported, you're implying a 20% or so conviction rate. That is way, way lower than any estimate I'm aware of.
 
ZZLPHeels said:
This was not caused by the police. Someone shot at police officers, who returned fire. He escaped. There are hundreds of officers risking their lives to find him now. Stop blaming the police for the actions of a deranged gunman who literally tried to kill them.
Click to expand...
yes, the killer started everything. you still haven't taken responsibility for misrepresenting the parts of my position that are relevant to this thread so that you could continue mounting your derailment of a police defense, nor have you addressed that police in vehicles were unable to apprehend a lone wolf shooter who they caught inside a house and stopped from getting to his car, and that has led to my initial frustrations.
 
SnoopRob said:
This board not only allows, but encourages, the dumbest posters to hijack threads.
Click to expand...
lol. You are the worst pos ever. Just dying to ban anyone who disagrees with you or dares to comment on comments that are nothing more than attacks on opposing views. How dare they interrupt our insult threads.
 
superrific said:
You are right -- I confused those words. It wasn't even a typo. I meant to type loathe. It was a conscious mistake. Does having made that mistake make me a worse poster? It does not. Does it bother me in the slightest? Nope. It was just a mistake. I've learned something here. A small thing, but something. Thank you for pointing it out and I wish other people would respond more constructively when they make mistakes.

Does that 1-5% exclude guilty pleas? Because there is no way there's an arrested suspect in 37% of cases, and that level of convictions. Even if you double it to account for the ones not reported, you're implying a 20% or so conviction rate. That is way, way lower than any estimate I'm aware of.
Click to expand...
i gave you my source earlier; here's an article hosted by Snopes that summarizes it (again, I think in an intentionally inflammatory way that regardless isn't without merit). Police Solve Just 2% of All Major Crimes

there's also obviously disparity in the language used, between "violent crime," "felony," "serious crime," etc.
 
akillesheel said:
nor have you addressed that police in vehicles were unable to apprehend a lone wolf shooter who they caught inside a house and stopped from getting to his car, and that has led to my initial frustrations.
Click to expand...
Here's how I see it. They went to the scene of a crime, found dead people. Then they did a welfare check on a nearby house. When they went to that house, there were many important facts they didn't know:

1. If there were any bad guys inside
2. If so, how many bad guys
3. Whether the bad guys were laying in wait to ambush them
4. Who else is in the house.
5. The layout of the house, which the killer knows because he's inside and he might have even pushed furniture around.

In addition, it's dark. The killer has the tactical advantage, because he can see them coming whereas they don't even know if he's there or what he looks like.

Now, maybe those unknowns aren't show-stopping or even significant speed bumps. Maybe the cops were inept. But I don't want to make that judgment if I haven't ever arrested anyone ever (I haven't), let alone go into that sort of tactically ambiguous, highly dangerous situation.
 
Callatoroy said:
lol. You are the worst pos ever. Just dying to ban anyone who disagrees with you or dares to comment on comments that are nothing more than attacks on opposing views. How dare they interrupt our insult threads.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. You are pretty consistent in attacking other posters not just other views. Your discourse is far more inflammatory than, say, Ramrouser.
 
Last edited:
NYTimes reports ...

"Officials urged residents to avoid anti-Trump protests while they hunt for the gunman, concerned that he might be planning to target the demonstrations."

Maybe law enforcement in Minnesota know more than Ramrouser and the NY Post? Can it be?
 
Bobfripp said:
NYTimes reports ...

"Officials urged residents to avoid anti-Trump protests while they hunt for the gunman, concerned that he might be planning to target the demonstrations."

Maybe law enforcement in Minnesota know more than Ramrouser and the NY Post? Can it be?
Click to expand...
If it is the workplace development guy, that makes it even more likely this was politically motivated. Specifically, motivated by a desire to give the Pubs a majority in the MN legislature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top