By Nicholas Stix
At Countenance.
Sunday, November 30, 2014
St. Louis Rams Players Do “Hands-Up, Don’t Shoot” Dance Before Game Against Raiders: Racist Thugs Showing Their Support for a Failed, Racist, Black, Aspiring Cop-Killer
VIDEO: Rams players do the "hands up, don't shoot” pose before game vs. Raiders http://t.co/6SrOlSQoJm #Ferguson pic.twitter.com/JQ5KkFU6vL
— Bleacher Report (@BleacherReport) November 30, 2014See more at Countenance.
After Supporting Riots in Ferguson, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon Asks State Legislature for Millions of $ for the Damages He Helped Cause; GOP House Majority Floor Leader: You First Need to Account for Yourself
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
@ChuckCJohnson RT @PeterKinder Fine statement, @jrosenbaum: Recd frm @johndiehljr re #Ferguson special session: pic.twitter.com/YBGWncnftA
— Rhonda K Taylor (@RoKeT_gal) November 30, 2014Thanksgiving Day Hate Crime: Young and the Restless Actor Corey Sligh Beaten by Raceless, Faceless Attackers While Delivering Dinner to Friend
W: Per usual, no description of the attackers.
At Inquistr.
The Diversity Double-Talk Strait-Jacket (Poster)
I wonder how brainwashed @EricWolfson actually is pic.twitter.com/PKvsKCrF0T
— LinuxLewis (@LinuxL3wis) November 30, 2014Classic Abbott & Costello Sketch: “Crazy House,” with Hillary Brooke and Murray Leonard
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Uploaded on Jun 26, 2010 by Kovacs Corner.
[From "Kovacs Corner" on YouTube.com] - Here Bud Abbott and Lou Costello perform one of the most famous and widely copied burlesque and vaudeville interruption sketches, "Crazy House." Also known on the vaudeville circuit as "Nut House," this filmed sketch from the first season of their 1952 half-hour television show is probably one of the very few surviving performances of this well-worn, and now largely forgotten, burlesque classic. The premise of the sketch started with Lou suffering from insomnia. After a number of futile and hilarious efforts to help Lou get his necessary sleep, Bud finally decides to check Lou into a "rest home." More like a mental institution with the patients in charge, Lou is subjected to a series of bizarre intrusions into his hospital room. We get a chance to experience such classic schtick as spit takes, gun fire, and seltzer bottles. Also appearing in this sketch is the constantly career-shifting Hillary Brooke, the constantly character shifting Sid Fields, and the ever present Bobby Barber. Character actor Murray Leonard plays "Dr. Mainey, ME."
Uploaded on Jun 26, 2010 by Kovacs Corner.
[From "Kovacs Corner" on YouTube.com] - Here Bud Abbott and Lou Costello perform one of the most famous and widely copied burlesque and vaudeville interruption sketches, "Crazy House." Also known on the vaudeville circuit as "Nut House," this filmed sketch from the first season of their 1952 half-hour television show is probably one of the very few surviving performances of this well-worn, and now largely forgotten, burlesque classic. The premise of the sketch started with Lou suffering from insomnia. After a number of futile and hilarious efforts to help Lou get his necessary sleep, Bud finally decides to check Lou into a "rest home." More like a mental institution with the patients in charge, Lou is subjected to a series of bizarre intrusions into his hospital room. We get a chance to experience such classic schtick as spit takes, gun fire, and seltzer bottles. Also appearing in this sketch is the constantly career-shifting Hillary Brooke, the constantly character shifting Sid Fields, and the ever present Bobby Barber. Character actor Murray Leonard plays "Dr. Mainey, ME."
The Myth of the Routine Traffic Stop: Driver Sends Fusillade Cop’s Way (Colin Flaherty Video)
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Cop shooting. Amazing.
Published on Sep 25, 2014 by Colin Flaherty.
I get a lot of ‘cops are bad people’ emails. This is why I could not care less for any of them.
Cop shooting. Amazing.
Published on Sep 25, 2014 by Colin Flaherty.
I get a lot of ‘cops are bad people’ emails. This is why I could not care less for any of them.
Ultraviolent Drifter Deanne Ostbye Gets Over, by Playing the Crazy Card
[See my VDARE report: “Deanne Ostbye and Eriese Tisdale: Two of the Minority Voters Mitt Romney Regrets Not Appealing to.”]
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Court finds tourist-shover Deanne Ostbye unfit to stand trial
Deanne Ostbye, 30, of Tacoma, Wash. was charged with reckless endangerment, assault, attempted assault and harassment after for the mean-spirited March 1 push that left a blonde Serbian sightseer Aleksandra Cvetkovic, 34, with blood pouring from her head.
By Shayna Jacobs
April 17, 2013
New York Daily News
The woman who shoved a Times Square tourist to the ground as she posed for a vacation snapshot that went viral has been found mentally unfit to stand trial.
Deanne Ostbye, 30, of Tacoma, Wash. was charged with reckless endangerment, assault, attempted assault and harassment after for the mean-spirited March 1 push that left a blonde Serbian sightseer Aleksandra Cvetkovic, 34, with blood pouring from her head.
Ostbye's attorney was informed Wednesday of the psychiatric finding by court doctors. She did not have to appear.
Unless the finding is challenged and reversed, Ostbye will go to a state-run psychotic [sic] facility for an undetermined length of time.
[I’ve never called it a “psychotic facility” before, but maybe Daily News writer Shayna Jacobs screwed up and got it right.]
Saturday, November 29, 2014
New York Times Operative Julie Bosman, Who Tried to Get Officer Darren Wilson and His Wife Murdered, is Now Desperately Calling the Chicago PD Non-Stop for Protection
Julie Bosman: At least she's pretty on the outside
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
BREAKING: COPS: NYT Reporter Who Published #DarrenWilson Address Calling Cops Nonstop
November 29, 2014
By Charles C. Johnson
Got News
669 Comments
The New York Times journalist who published Darren Wilson’s home address wants police protection and has been calling the police nonstop, Gotnews.com has learned.
Julie Bosman “keeps calling the 020th District station complaining about people harassing and threatening her,” our source told us. She’s also “complaining about numerous food deliveries being sent to her residence.”
Chicago police department sources alerted Gotnews.com about the glaring double standard on Friday.
Gotnews.com published Julie Bosman’s address in Chicago after she published the address of Officer Darren Wilson and his new wife in a widely criticized move.
America’s Leading Political Analyst Addresses the Michael Brown Brigades: “What Do You Think You’re Accomplishing?”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
What Do You Think You’re Accomplishing?
By Countenance BlogmeisterNovember 29, 2014
Countenance Blog
The handsupdontshoot rabble is (sarcasm on) really doing right by their cause from a public relations standpoint (sarcasm off). The average person is really going to want to sign up for a cause whose most visible and vocal adherents and advocates burn down auto parts stores and pizza joints, riot, loot, make kids cry at Christmas tree lighting ceremonies, threaten violence at malls to make them close, disrupt big box store shopping, stand in the middle of interstate highways during rush hour, threaten people who are about to come out of hockey games such that the arena is locked down (that happened in St. Louis last night).
White suburban soccer moms and working moms bringing themselves and their kids to handsupdontshoot street theater? Forget about that, we blew way past that milestone a long time ago. It’s now even more fundamental than that: Who wants even to believe in their cause? Other than the kind of reprobates and losers who naturally gravitate to that kind of thing. While it’s not a logical thing to say or think, these kinds of optics do matter very much in the PR world. People are going to draw conclusions about the undesirability of a cause and its politics from the violent and proto-violent antics of its adherents.
I do PR for a living, partially, but I also have a logical mind. I can operate in both worlds while realizing that they often contradict each other. This is why while the logical side of me didn’t make the Michael Brown case settled science until August 18 (when Eric S. Raymond analyzed the first autopsy), the PR side of me fully realizes why a lot of people made up their minds on August 15 (when the Ferguson Market security camera still shots were released). Until August 18, most everyone who cared about this had to operate in the benefit-of-the-doubt space, but what August 15 did was clue people on which side deserved most of that benefit. This is why the other side didn’t want the security stills released and ranted and raged out when they were, because they knew it was a PR coup and an instant narrative buster.
Which is why I warn our own people: Avoid the temptation of millenarianism. If we start promulgating the notion that things have to fall apart before they get better, then no quality people are going to join our cause. Who actually wants disaster to begin with? And who wants to be part of a cause where disaster is a prerequisite to its success?
One of the favorite chants of the rabble: “This is what democracy looks like.” And you know what? That’s the only correct thing they’ve said so far.
Where Hillary Clinton in 2016 is Concerned, Leftwing Reporters are Engaging in Gamesmanship, for Gamesmanship’s Sake
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
According to the two socialist reporters below, other socialist and communist writers are attacking Hillary Clinton, just to gin up Democratic voter turnout for primaries over a year away. They also refer vacuously to “economic populism,” but only one of their talking heads, Michael Tomasky, gives any content to the phrase: “student loans.”
Apparently, either the lefty media operatives are just using “economic populism,” as a vacuous talking point, or it is meant to deceive white working-class voters into thinking the Democratic Party, which is sworn to their destruction, somehow supports them. But if the DPUSA supported working-class whites, it would oppose the illegal, unconstitutional illegal alien amnesty put forth by the dictator calling himself “Barack Obama.” That would be THE economically populist position. (Actually, the same would apply to working classes of all races, but blacks are so genocidally racist that they support any policy that will harm, whites, even if the same policy will hurt blacks even more.)
And so, we have two despicable, treasonous, ruling political parties, each of which wants to feign support for some sort of vague “populism,” both of which, however, hate the people whose votes they rely on. If these “reporters” were worth their salt, instead of being DPUSA operatives writing about their comrades, they’d play this card for all it’s worth. Then again, if they were worth their salt, they'd be asking if there's even going to be a 2016 election.
The liberal media's not ready for Hillary
She has no viable opponent, so progressive outlets are trying to create one.
By Maggie Haberman and Hadas Gold
11/12/14 7:28 P.M. EST
Updated 11/13/14 11:46 P.M. EST
Politico
Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running. Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar have said the same. Even Martin O’Malley has refused to take shots at Hillary Clinton.
According to the two socialist reporters below, other socialist and communist writers are attacking Hillary Clinton, just to gin up Democratic voter turnout for primaries over a year away. They also refer vacuously to “economic populism,” but only one of their talking heads, Michael Tomasky, gives any content to the phrase: “student loans.”
Apparently, either the lefty media operatives are just using “economic populism,” as a vacuous talking point, or it is meant to deceive white working-class voters into thinking the Democratic Party, which is sworn to their destruction, somehow supports them. But if the DPUSA supported working-class whites, it would oppose the illegal, unconstitutional illegal alien amnesty put forth by the dictator calling himself “Barack Obama.” That would be THE economically populist position. (Actually, the same would apply to working classes of all races, but blacks are so genocidally racist that they support any policy that will harm, whites, even if the same policy will hurt blacks even more.)
And so, we have two despicable, treasonous, ruling political parties, each of which wants to feign support for some sort of vague “populism,” both of which, however, hate the people whose votes they rely on. If these “reporters” were worth their salt, instead of being DPUSA operatives writing about their comrades, they’d play this card for all it’s worth. Then again, if they were worth their salt, they'd be asking if there's even going to be a 2016 election.
The liberal media's not ready for Hillary
She has no viable opponent, so progressive outlets are trying to create one.
By Maggie Haberman and Hadas Gold
11/12/14 7:28 P.M. EST
Updated 11/13/14 11:46 P.M. EST
Politico
Elizabeth Warren says she’s not running. Kirsten Gillibrand and Amy Klobuchar have said the same. Even Martin O’Malley has refused to take shots at Hillary Clinton.
So the liberal media is taking matters into its own hands.
Absent a strong challenge to Clinton from the left so far, progressive media outlets are trying to fill the void — propping up Warren, the Massachusetts senator, Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator who has made noise about running for president, and outgoing Maryland Gov. O’Malley, the only one laying any groundwork toward a run. Even Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who styles himself a “Democratic socialist,” is getting some play in an effort to avoid a coronation.
(Also on POLITICO: Why Wall Street loves Hillary)
The fight is less about ideological purity than it is about motivating the Democratic base, especially after the party’s wipeout in last week’s midterms.
The anti-Clinton drumbeat in progressive outlets picked up quickly as soon as the midterms were over.
“The Lesson from the Midterms: Elizabeth Warren Should Run in 2016,” read the headline the day after the elections from In These Times.
“Bernie Sanders is the Presidential Candidate America Truly Needs,” added Mic.com, a relatively new site aimed at progressive millennials, on Monday.
(Also on POLITICO: Clinton left out by liberal donor club)
The Nation, which has been flexing muscle after a wave of economic populism swept over the Democratic Party, has been beating the drums for a Clinton challenger for months. At times, The New Republic has chimed in about Clinton’s weaknesses. And in October, Harper’s Magazine ran a piece by far-left writer Doug Henwood that ripped Clinton as a hawkish centrist out of step with the spirit of the times.
Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor and part owner of The Nation, is blunt about her motives: The magazine, still an influential voice on the left and an outlet experiencing renewed relevance in a populist Democratic Party, plans to play a role in shaping the primary — with or without Warren.
“We believe that there’s a kind of economic populism and an agenda … that we hope to drive into 2015 and 2016,” Vanden Heuvel said in an interview. “And Hillary Clinton, because of her history, because of her team, has not been part of that wing of the Democratic Party. … [E]ven the most ardent Hillary fans should understand that sometimes not only her party and the country — but her candidacy — would be better served if she has competition.”
(Also on POLITICO: The Rudy Giuliani guide to beating Hillary Clinton)
The Nation played a key role in 2013 in New York City’s mayoral primary, endorsing little-known Public Advocate Bill de Blasio early and giving him momentum among the primary’s deeply liberal voters. In this year’s Democratic primary for governor in New York, the magazine endorsed Zephyr Teachout, a virtually unknown law professor who became a painful thorn in Andrew Cuomo’s side and kept his winning margin in the primary uncomfortably low.
Progressive media outlets are less attempting to prop up Warren as a potential candidate than to make sure her populist crusades — like cracking down on the banking industry — will define the debate. At times, that involves promoting Warren, but it also will mean looking at people like Sanders, who has started visiting early states and has said that Clinton will need to explain her relationship with Wall Street. Even Webb, who was Ronald Reagan’s Navy secretary and claims to have told President Barack Obama that health care reform would be a “disaster,” has gotten some love on the left.
The various outlets’ focus on Warren and the field of potential anti-Hillarys has caught the eyes of Clintonland, which views the Massachusetts senator skeptically and is well aware that she has said little positive about the former secretary of state, including when the two appeared at the same political rally for failed gubernatorial candidate Martha Coakley last month. Clinton insiders have said privately that they see Warren as trying to keep some small ember alive about her own future, even as she insists she’s not running for president.
• • •
If The Nation and The New Republic, which ran its own pro-Warren cover in November 2013, are all about encouraging reasoned, healthy debate on the issues, Harper’s Magazine is going in the opposition direction. In bright, shining neon.
“Stop Hillary!” blared the headline on the magazine’s October cover.
“It was just commissioned to be critical, and they got what they asked for,” Henwood said in an interview about his article, in which he described Clinton as part of a “widespread liberal fantasy of her as a progressive paragon … in fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations.” (David Brock, a Clinton ally who runs both Media Matters and the pro-Clinton group Correct The Record, attacked Henwood’s story as a “liberal screed” that would have “no effect other than bolstering the Republican case against her, and so we’re going to push back on them.”)
The Clinton-questioning chorus isn’t just lefty magazines, either. Mika Brzezinski, the co-host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” has repeatedly encouraged Warren to go for it, and she was critical of Clinton’s gaffes about her wealth during her book tour. On Wednesday, Brzezinski said Warren challenging Clinton in a primary “would be great.” Her MSNBC colleague Chris Hayes has publicly questioned Clinton in recent months, including what he called her “bizarre” silence on the police shooting in Ferguson of an unarmed [sic] black teen.
The questioning of assumptions about Clinton’s march to the White House — and not just on the left — is partly a story of journalists looking for sharp angles on a Democratic primary race that threatens to be deadly dull. The New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza, for instance, recently took a sober, straightforward look at the “trap” Clinton could fall into assuming inevitability, writing that the midterm election results could lead to “a Republican Party that overinterprets its mandate in Congress and pushes its presidential candidates far to the right, freeing Democrats to gamble on someone younger or more progressive than Clinton.”
But the doubt among progressives is real, even though Clinton may be better positioned with the base of the Democratic Party now than in 2008. Back then, her media critics had more alternatives to work with — a slew of sitting senators were openly running for the Democratic nomination, including Barack Obama and John Edwards, a progressive favorite until his marital troubles came to light.
Clinton’s record, particularly her vote for the Iraq War in 2002, was also more unsettling to the left in 2008 — a weakness that Obama skillfully exploited. Now, most of the debate over social issues such as same-sex marriage has been settled within the Democratic Party, and the new frontier is economic populism — the very cause that has fueled Warren’s rise.
So Clinton still has to guard her left flank, but she also has influential defenders among progressives, too.
In the past two years, the Daily Kos, a hub of progressive online activism that was a thorn in her side in the 2008 primary, has been far more positive about her prospective candidacy this time around — and critical of outlets that try to bolster anti-Clinton narratives. Its founder, Markos Moulitsas has refused to engage in the speculation that Warren might change her mind and run, and has described Clinton as the party’s best hope for a second history-making victory after electing a black president in 2008.
“It’s a distraction,” Moulitsas, who wouldn’t comment for this story, wrote in a February Daily Kos editorial. “With Clinton’s commanding general election trial heats, not to mention demographic shifts shoring up our electoral picture, we’ll have the luxury to look beyond the presidential and take a more holistic approach to the cycle.”
Arianna Huffington also has been positive about Clinton since last year, despite some Clinton allies recalling bitterly how the site she founded, The Huffington Post, handled her in the 2008 race. In April of that year, during the thick of the campaign season, Huffington Post ran a story that called into question whether Clinton was the champion of working-class, white voters that she claimed to be at the time.
Though Huffington has yet to express such full-throated support for Clinton, she made an open plea for her to return to public life shortly after she left the State Department. And when asked about a Clinton candidacy, Huffington told talk show host Wendy Williams in June she thinks “it would be fantastic to have a woman president.” (Huffington declined to respond to a POLITICO request for comment.)
Salon writer Joan Walsh has repeatedly written favorably about Clinton, and was set to appear at a panel for the pro-Clinton super PAC, Ready for Hillary, on Nov. 21, though conference organizers say Walsh pulled out to avoid appearing partisan.
Of all the anti-Clinton narratives, the Warren bubble remains the most sustained. It swelled late last year when TNR, which enraged many on the left when it endorsed Joe Lieberman over John Kerry in 2004, profiled her. The reported [?] essay by writer Noam Scheiber was headlined, “Hillary’s Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren.”
Warren gave a rare interview for the story, in which Scheiber concluded that “if Hillary Clinton runs and retains her ties to Wall Street, Warren will be more likely to join the race, not less. Warren is shrewd enough to understand that the future of the Democratic Party is at stake in 2016.”
Warren aides insisted at the time that nothing had changed and she wasn’t planning to run. And the Warren intrigue seems to have passed fairly quickly there — seven months later, Scheiber and TNR ran a follow-on story about Clinton headlined, “How Hillary Won Over the Skeptical Left,” that acknowledged the degree to which the party has coalesced around the former secretary of state.
Yet the Clintons often have a way of keeping the longer goal in mind. A year after that Warren piece set off alarm bells in Clintonland about whether the senator was pushing the story — Warren aides reached out to Clintonland at the time to soothe concerns, according to people familiar with the discussions. And Bill Clinton is set to be the featured speaker at a TNR gala to mark the magazine’s 100th anniversary in Washington next month.
Still, the progressive outlets remain a potential force against Clinton — their publishers have shown a willingness to lob a grenade in her direction, and get attention doing it.
“You don’t have to be ‘left’ to object to stasis in politics,” said John MacArthur, the president of Harper’s.
“Anytime you challenge the received wisdom, the people who benefit from the received wisdom are threatened,” he added. “She’s happy with the situation where people think it’s inevitable, she can’t lose … and somebody suddenly raises the possibility of a challenge or the wisdom of a challenge. So yeah, it has to make them somewhat nervous because it gives people ideas.”
Michael Tomasky, the Daily Beast columnist who has covered Hillary Clinton as a candidate since her 2000 race for U.S. Senate, predicted the noise against her will be more about trying to get the potential White House candidate to embrace progressive economic issues like student loans and ending tax breaks for the wealthy than genuine attempts to drum up a strong primary challenger.
“There’s going to be a lot of anti-Clinton [sentiment] in the Democratic, liberal left end of spectrum,” Tomasky told POLITICO. “Some of it will be genuinely against her, and some of it will be for the purpose of trying to push her in that direction.”
It gives Clinton an opportunity, he said, and she should view it that way – and craft positions that appeal to the left accordingly: “She’ll have a galvanized Democratic Party behind her, versus half a party which felt only a little enthusiastic.”
As the field becomes clearer and Republicans ratchet up their attacks against Clinton, those who might not be too happy with Clinton will quiet down, David Corn, Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine, said in an interview.
“It’s easy to gripe about Hillary. It’s a lot harder to find a solution.”
Authors:
Maggie Haberman
mhaberman@politico.com
@maggiepolitico
Hadas Gold
hgold@politico.com
@hadas_gold
Ferguson: The Racial Socialist Media Did Not Approve This Message
@PeterKinder @GovJayNixon a photo is worth 1000 words #EpicFail #SupportLocalBusinesses pic.twitter.com/tq6pehLizq
— Dee (@NativeTearz) November 29, 2014Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder Calls for Arrest of Michael Brown’s Stepfather, Louis “Burn This Bitch Down!” Head, for Inciting to Riot
Missouri lt. governor calls for arrest of Michael Brown’s stepfather for inciting to riot
November 28, 2014
BizPac Review
69 Comments
Radio talk show host Laura Ingraham asked Missouri Lieutenant Governor Peter Kinder, one of the only state Republican lawmakers left, for his response to Michael Brown’s stepfather, Louis Head, telling the Ferguson mobs to “burn this bi**h down,” after the grand jury announced no indictment for Darren Wilson Monday.
“When you hear that soundbite from the stepfather of Michael Brown, what’s your reaction?,” Ingraham asked.
“That he should be arrested and charged with inciting to riot,” Kinder said with certainty.
Ingraham described a sign in her house growing up that said “we shoot looters,” and asked why there weren’t mass arrests in Ferguson.
“Nothing quite says civil rights outrage like a fifth of Jack Daniels,” she said of the rioters who looted liquor stores. “That really speaks to the great legacy of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King.”
“Or a new plasma [TV],” Kinder interrupted.
Another Black Man Attacks a White Policeman with an Ax
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Another police officer attacked with ax
By Gavin Stern
9:25 PM, Oct 31, 2014
11:09 PM, Oct 31, 2014
Knoxville News Sentinel
Another police officer attacked with ax
By Gavin Stern
9:25 PM, Oct 31, 2014
11:09 PM, Oct 31, 2014
Knoxville News Sentinel
Another police officer has been attacked with an ax, this time in Washington, DC.
A man plunged a large ax into the drivers side window of a patrol car while a police officer was inside Friday, Washington Metropolitan Police said. The ax, which was several feet long, remained embedded in the window as the officer and attacker fought.
"It appears this person specifically targeted this police officer," said police chief Cathy Lanier at a press conference.
District of Columbia police are searching for the attacker, who escaped. WJLA reports that the officer, whose name has not been released, suffered a dislocated shoulder.
The attack comes about a week after two New York City police officers were ambushed by a man wielding a hatchet, considered a "terrorist act" by the NYPD. Officer Kenneth Healey, who was struck in the head, left the hospital Wednesday.
Gavin Stern is a national digital producer for the Scripps National Desk. Follow him on twitter at @GavinStern or email him at gavin.stern@scripps.com.
Could Almost Half of Rape Allegations be False?
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
I’m not sure what to make of the undated article below, but I still think it’s worth re-posting. (If this were a magazine, newspaper or journal, I wouldn’t, but there’s enough food for thought to munch it over for now, until I can contact people in the field.)
The thing that has me concerned is a footnote, referring to the “Innocence Project,” at the end of the following sentence:
The footnote links to the “Innocence Project,” an outfit that has been caught committing fraud. IP’s thing is to try and “exonerate” guilty-as-hell black men, and even cite guilty black and Hispanic men, like the Central Park Five attackers as “exonerated,” when they never have been, and wildly exaggerate the numbers of innocent black men in prison. The notion that thousands of white women are having consensual sex with black men and then falsely accusing them of rape is a hoary old black supremacist fairy tale that white Marxists and feminists have recently revived.
The Innocence Project claims that there have been 202 post-conviction DNA exonerations of black men, out of 321 exonerated suspects (98 white) since 1989, including all violent crimes. Even if its numbers were true, that would be a negligible percentage of 4.1 million violent crimes committed in 2013 alone. Over the period (1989-) of which the Innocence Project speaks, there would have been 100 million or so violent crimes, which would mean that one out of 300,000 or so suspects is being exonerated, due to DNA testing, a statistically meaningless fraction. Each DNA exoneration means all the world to that individual and his loved ones, but gives no support whatsoever to the Innocence Project’s assertion that the prisons are full of black men falsely convicted of rape.
The Innocence Project was founded by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, who would later get an acquittal for the Butcher of Brentwood, O.J. Simpson, for his grisly murders of his wife Nicole, and her friend Ron Goldman. Its real purpose is to aid and abet heinous black and Hispanic criminals.
That notwithstanding, there are a great many false rape accusations being made every year, and we do not need to rely on the “Innocence Project” to say that.
www.mediaRADAR.org
I’m not sure what to make of the undated article below, but I still think it’s worth re-posting. (If this were a magazine, newspaper or journal, I wouldn’t, but there’s enough food for thought to munch it over for now, until I can contact people in the field.)
The thing that has me concerned is a footnote, referring to the “Innocence Project,” at the end of the following sentence:
Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.9
The footnote links to the “Innocence Project,” an outfit that has been caught committing fraud. IP’s thing is to try and “exonerate” guilty-as-hell black men, and even cite guilty black and Hispanic men, like the Central Park Five attackers as “exonerated,” when they never have been, and wildly exaggerate the numbers of innocent black men in prison. The notion that thousands of white women are having consensual sex with black men and then falsely accusing them of rape is a hoary old black supremacist fairy tale that white Marxists and feminists have recently revived.
The Innocence Project claims that there have been 202 post-conviction DNA exonerations of black men, out of 321 exonerated suspects (98 white) since 1989, including all violent crimes. Even if its numbers were true, that would be a negligible percentage of 4.1 million violent crimes committed in 2013 alone. Over the period (1989-) of which the Innocence Project speaks, there would have been 100 million or so violent crimes, which would mean that one out of 300,000 or so suspects is being exonerated, due to DNA testing, a statistically meaningless fraction. Each DNA exoneration means all the world to that individual and his loved ones, but gives no support whatsoever to the Innocence Project’s assertion that the prisons are full of black men falsely convicted of rape.
The Innocence Project was founded by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, who would later get an acquittal for the Butcher of Brentwood, O.J. Simpson, for his grisly murders of his wife Nicole, and her friend Ron Goldman. Its real purpose is to aid and abet heinous black and Hispanic criminals.
That notwithstanding, there are a great many false rape accusations being made every year, and we do not need to rely on the “Innocence Project” to say that.
www.mediaRADAR.org
About Half of Rape Allegations are False, Research Shows
www.mediaRADAR.org False allegations of rape are believed to be more common than many persons realize. These are the findings of four research studies:
A review of 556 rape accusations filed against Air Force personnel found that 27% of women later recanted. Then 25 criteria were developed based on the profile of those women, and then submitted to three independent reviewers to review the remaining cases. If all three reviewers deemed the allegation was false, it was categorized as false. As a result, 60% of all allegations were found to be false.1
Of those women who later recanted, many didn't admit the allegation was false until just before taking a polygraph test. Others admitted it was false only after having failed a polygraph test.2
In a nine-year study of 109 rapes reported to the police in a Midwestern city, Purdue sociologist Eugene J. Kanin reported that in 41% of the cases the complainants eventually admitted that no rape had occurred.3
In a follow-up study of rape claims filed over a three-year period at two large Midwestern universities, Kanin found that of 64 rape cases, 50% turned out to be false.4 Among the false charges, 53% of the women admitted they filed the false claim as an alibi.5
According to a 1996 Department of Justice report, “in about 25% of the sexual assault cases referred to the FBI, ... the primary suspect has been excluded by forensic DNA testing.6
It should be noted that rape involves a forcible and non-consensual act, and a DNA match alone does not prove that rape occurred. So the 25% figure substantially underestimates the true extent of false allegations.
And according to former Colorado prosecutor Craig Silverman, “For 16 years, I was a kick-ass prosecutor who made most of my reputation vigorously prosecuting rapists. ... I was amazed to see all the false rape allegations that were made to the Denver Police Department. ... A command officer in the Denver Police sex assaults unit recently told me he placed the false rape numbers at approximately 45%.”7
According to the FBI, about 95,000 forcible rapes were reported in 2004.8
Based on the statements and studies cited above, some 47,000 American men are falsely accused of rape each year. These men are disproportionately African-American.9
Some of these men are wrongly convicted, sentenced, and imprisoned. Even if there is no conviction, a false allegation of rape can “emotionally, socially, and economically destroy a person.”10
1
McDowell CP. False allegations.
Forensic Science Digest,
Vol. 11, No. 4, December 1985
2
Ibid.
3
Kanin EJ. An alarming national trend: False rape allegations.
Archives of Sexual Behavior,
Vol. 23, No. 1, 1994
http://www.sexcriminals.com/library/doc-1002-1.pdf
4
Ibid., p. 2, Kanin reports that in the city studied, "for a declaration of false charge to be made, the complainant must admit that no rape had occurred. ... The police department will not declare a rape charge as false when the complainant, for whatever reason, fails to pursue the charge or cooperate on the case, regardless how much doubt the police may have regarding the validity of the charge. In short, these cases are declared false only because the complainant admitted they are false. ... Thus, the rape complainants referred to in this paper are for completed forcible rapes only. The foregoing leaves us with a certain confidence that cases declared false by this police agency are indeed a reasonable -- if not a minimal -- reflection of false rape allegations made to this agency, especially when one considers that a finding of false allegation is totally dependent upon the recantation of the rape charge."
5
Ibid., Addenda.
6
Connors E, Lundregan T, Miller N, McEwen T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: Case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial. June 1996
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/dnaevid.txt
7
http://web.archive.org/web/20050404230831/http://www.thedenverchannel.com/kobebryanttrial/2812198/detail.html
8
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Forcible rape. February 17, 2006.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/forcible_rape.html
9
Innocence Project: Facts on post-conviction DNA exonerations.
http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/351.php
10
Angelucci M, Sacks G. Research shows false allegations of rape common.
Los Angeles Daily Journal,
Sept. 15, 2004.
http://www.glennsacks.com/research_shows_false.htm
Criminal Victimization in the U.S., 2013 Stats from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), U.S. Department of Justice
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
-------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5111
This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=6
-------------------------------------------------------
Bulletin
Criminal Victimization, 2013
Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., and Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians
In 2013, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 6.1 million violent victimizations and 16.8 million property victimizations, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). After two consecutive years of increases, the overall violent crime rate (which includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) declined slightly, from 26.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 23.2 per 1,000 in 2013 (figure 1). The slight decline in simple assault accounted for about 80% of the change in total violence. The rate of violent crime in 2013 was similar to the rate in 2011 (22.6 per 1,000). Since 1993, the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
The overall property crime rate (which includes household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft) decreased from 155.8 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 131.4 victimizations per 1,000 in 2013. The decline in theft accounted for the majority of the decrease in property crime. Since 1993, the rate of property crime has declined from 351.8 to 131.4 victimizations per 1,000 households.
**************************************************
************
HIGHLIGHTS
************
Violent crime
***************
* The rate of violent crime declined slightly from 26.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 23.2 per 1,000 in 2013. [A drop of 11.1% in one year doesn’t sound slight to me. Why hide your light under a bushel?]
* No statistically significant change was detected in the rate of serious violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) from 2012 to 2013 (7.3 per 1,000).
* From 2012 to 2013, no statistically significant changes occurred in the rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, violence resulting in an injury, or violence involving a firearm.
* Violent crimes committed by a stranger decreased from 10.3 per 1,000 in 2012 to 7.9 per 1,000 in 2013.
* In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations and 61% of serious violent victimizations were reported to police.
Property crime
*****************
* The rate of property crime decreased from 155.8 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 131.4 per 1,000 in 2013.
Prevalence of crime
*********************
* In 2013, 1.2% of all persons age 12 or older (3 million persons) experienced at least one violent victimization. About 0.4% (1.1 million persons) experienced at least one serious violent victimization.
* The prevalence rate of violent victimization declined from 1.4% of all persons age 12 or older in 2012 to 1.2% in 2013.
* In 2013, 9% of all households (11.5 million households) experienced one or more property victimizations.
**************************************************
***************************************
No significant change occurred in the rate of serious violent crime
from 2012 to 2013
***************************************
There was no statistically significant change in the rate of serious violent crime—defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault—from 2012 (8.0 per 1,000) to 2013 (7.3 per 1,000) (table 1). In 2013, the rates of total violent crime and serious violent crime were lower than the rates observed a decade earlier in 2004.
**************************************************
**********************************
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
**********************************
The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Initial NCVS interviews are conducted in person with subsequent interviews conducted either in person or by phone. In 2013, the response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. The NCVS produces national rates and levels of violent and property victimization, as well as information on the characteristics of crimes and victims, and the consequences of victimization. Since NCVS is based on interviews with victims, it does not measure homicide.
The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The NCVS classifies rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault as serious violent crimes.
Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft. The survey also measures personal larceny, which includes pickpocketing and purse snatching. For additional estimates not included in this report, see the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool (NVAT) on the BJS website.
Victimization is the basic unit of analysis used throughout most of this report. A victimization is a crime as it affects one person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims present during a criminal incident. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Each crime against a household is counted as having a single victim—the affected household.
The victimization rate is a measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specified population group. For personal crimes, the victimization rate is based on the number of victimizations per 1,000 residents age 12 or older. For household crimes, the victimization rate is calculated using the number of incidents per 1,000 households. Estimates are presented for 2013, 2012, and then for 2004, the 10-year
change.
**************************************************
**********************************
Violence committed by a stranger decreased from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
The rate of domestic violence—crime committed by intimate partners and family members—remained flat from 2012 to 2013 (4.2 per 1,000). No measurable change was detected from 2012 to 2013 in rates of intimate partner violence (2.8 per 1,000), which includes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.
Violent victimizations committed by a stranger decreased from 10.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 7.9 per 1,000 in 2013. The rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and violence committed by a stranger in 2013 were lower than rates in 2004. No statistically significant difference was found in the rates of serious violent crime involving weapons (4.4 per 1,000) or resulting in injury to the victim (2.8 per 1,000) from 2012 to 2013. The rate of serious violent crime involving weapons in 2013 was lower than the rate in 2004.
**********************************
No statistically significant change occurred in firearm violence from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
There was no statistically significant change in the rate of firearm violence from 2012 (1.8 per 1,000) to 2013 (1.3 per 1,000) (table 2). The rate of firearm violence in 2013 was slightly lower than the rate in 2004 (1.9 per 1,000). In 2013, there were 332,950 nonfatal firearm victimizations, compared to 460,720 in 2012. In 2013, about 75% of all serious violent crimes that involved a firearm were reported to police. There was no measurable change in the percentage of firearm violence
reported to police from 2012 to 2013.
**********************************
Thefts accounted for the majority of the decrease in property crime
**********************************
After increasing for 2 years, the number and rate of property crime victimization decreased from 2012 to 2013 (table 3). The rate of property crime victimization decreased from 155.8 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 131.4 per 1,000 in 2013, and was driven primarily by a decrease in theft. The rate of theft
decreased from 120.9 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 100.5 per 1,000 in 2013. The rate of household burglary decreased from 29.9 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 25.7 per 1,000 in 2013, while no measurable change occurred in the rate of motor vehicle theft during the same period (about 5 per 1,000). In 2013, the rates of property crime, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft were lower than the rates in 2004.
**************************************************
**********************
Prevalence of crime
**********************
Annual estimates of a population’s risk for criminal victimization can be examined using victimization rates or prevalence rates. Historically, BJS reports using NCVS data rely on victimization rates, which measure the extent to which victimizations occur in a specified population during a specific time. Victimization rates are used throughout this bulletin. For crimes affecting persons, NCVS victimization rates are estimated by dividing the number of victimizations that occur during a specified time (T) by the population at risk for those victimizations and multiplying the rate by 1,000.
Number of victimizations experienced by a specified population T
Victimization rate T = Number of persons in the specified populationT
Prevalence rates also describe the level of victimization but are based on the number of unique persons (or households) in the population who experienced at least one victimization during a specified time. The key distinction between a victimization rate and a prevalence rate is whether the numerator consists of the number of victimizations or the number of victims. For example, a person who experienced two robberies on separate occasions within the past year would be counted twice in the victimization rate but counted once in the prevalence rate. Prevalence rates are estimated by dividing the number of victims in the specified
population by the total number of persons in the population and multiplying the rate by 100. This is the percentage of the population victimized at least once in a given period.
Number of victims in a specified population T
Prevalence rate T = Number of persons in the specified population T
Victimization and prevalence rates may also be produced for household crimes, such as burglary. In these instances, the numerators and denominators are adjusted to reflect households rather than persons. To better understand the percentage of the population that is victimized at least once in a given period, prevalence rates are presented by type of crime and certain demographic characteristics. (For further information about measuring prevalence in the NCVS, see Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 241656, BJS web, September 2013).
**********************************
In 2013, 0.4% of all persons age 2 or older experienced serious violence
**********************************
In 2013, 1.2% of all persons age 12 or older (3 million persons) experienced at least one violent victimization (table 4). During the same period, about 0.4% of all persons age 12 or older (1.1 million persons) experienced at least one serious violent victimization (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). The prevalence rate of violent victimization declined from 1.4% of all persons age 12 or older in 2012 to 1.2% in 2013. No measurable change occurred in the prevalence rate of serious violent victimization from 2012 to 2013. During the same period, prevalence rates of robbery (0.1%) and simple assault (0.8%) also declined.
Less than 1% of all persons age 12 or older experienced one or more domestic violence (0.2%) or intimate partner violence (0.1%) victimizations in 2013. No measurable change occurred in the prevalence rates of domestic violence and intimate partner violence from 2012 to 2013. The prevalence of violence committed by strangers declined from 0.6% of all persons age 12 or older in 2012 to 0.5% in 2013.
In 2013, 9.0% of all households (11.5 million households) experienced one or more property victimizations. The prevalence rate of property victimization declined from 10.4% in 2012 to 9.0% in 2013. During the same period, the prevalence of household burglary and theft also declined. Similar to the property victimization rate, the decline in the prevalence rate of theft accounted for the majority of the decline in the prevalence rate of property victimization.
**********************************
Persons ages 12 to 17 had the highest prevalence of violence (2.2%)of all age groups in 2013
**********************************
In 2013, 1.2% of all males age 12 or older (1.6 million males) and 1.1% of all females (1.5 million females) experienced one or more violent victimizations (table 5). While the prevalence rate declined for both males and females from 2012 to 2013, a slightly higher percentage of males (1.2%) than females (1.1%) were victims of one or more violent crimes in 2013.
In 2013, about 57,300 Asians experienced one or more violent crimes during the year and had the lowest prevalence rate (0.4%) of the U.S. population. The percentage of the population who experienced violence was highest among American Indians or Alaska Natives (2.8%), accounting for 38,310 crime victims, and persons of two or more races (3.6%), accounting for 114,190 crime victims. Although there were over 3 times more white victims (1.9 million) than black (430,380) and Hispanic (540,130) victims in 2013, blacks (1.3%) and Hispanics (1.3%) had higher prevalence rates than whites (1.1%). This was a shift from 2004, when Hispanics (1.2%) had a lower prevalence rate than both whites (1.5%) and
blacks (1.7%).
The prevalence of violence declined for whites, blacks, and Asians from 2012 to 2013. Among Hispanics and American Indians or Alaska Natives, there was no significant change in the percentage of the population that experienced one or more violent crimes during the year. Among persons of two or more races, the prevalence rate increased from 2.0% of the population experiencing violence in 2012 to 3.6% in 2013.
In 2013, 545,370 persons ages 12 to 17, or about 2.2% of all persons ages 12 to 17, experienced at least one violent crime. Persons ages 12 to 17 had the highest prevalence of violence of all age groups. In comparison, persons age 65 or older had the lowest prevalence rate with 0.3% of the population experiencing one or more violent crimes. From 2012 to 2013, the prevalence of violent crime declined for persons ages 18 to 24, ages 25 to 34, and age 65 or older.
Persons who were never married had a higher prevalence rate of violence (1.8%) than persons who were married (0.6%). Persons who were separated had the highest prevalence of violence, with 3.3% experiencing one or more violent crimes. From 2012 to 2013, the prevalence of violence declined among both persons who were never married and persons who were married, but the rate remained flat for persons of all other marital statuses.
**************************************************
***************************************
In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations were reported to police
***************************************
The NCVS allows for an examination of crimes reported and not reported to police. Victims may not report the victimization for a variety of reasons, including fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or trivial. Police notification can come from the victim, a third party (including witnesses, other victims, household members, or other officials, such as school officials or workplace managers), or police being at the scene of the incident. Police notification may occur during or immediately following a criminal incident or at a later date.
From 2012 to 2013, there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of violent and serious violent victimizations reported to police (table 6). In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations and 61% of serious violent victimizations were reported to police. A greater percentage of robbery (68%) and aggravated assault (64%) were reported to police than simple assault (38%) and rape or sexual assault (35%) victimizations.
From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of property victimizations reported to police increased from 34% to 36%. The percentage of reported thefts increased from 26% to 29% during the same period, accounting for the majority of the increase in the overall percentage of property victimizations reported to police. No measurable change was detected in the percentage of burglaries and motor vehicle thefts reported to police from 2012 to 2013. Similar to previous years, a larger percentage of motor vehicle thefts (75%) than burglaries (57%) and other thefts (29%) were reported to police in 2013.
**********************************
Rates of property crime reported and not reported to police declined from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
From 2012 to 2013, no differences were detected in the overall rates of violence reported and not reported to police (table 7). Among violent and serious violent victimizations reported to police, the only significant change from 2012 to 2013 was in the rate of violence committed by a stranger, which declined slightly from 5.1 to 3.9 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. There was no significant change in the rates of domestic violence or intimate partner violence reported to police from 2012 to 2013. Among violent victimizations not reported to police, the rates of robbery, violence and serious violence committed by a stranger, and serious violent crime involving weapons declined from 2012 to 2013. The rates of robbery declined slightly from 1.2 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012 to 0.8 per 1,000 in 2013. The rates of unreported violence committed by a stranger declined slightly from 5.0 per 1,000 in 2012 to 3.8 per 1,000 in 2013. For other types of violence, the rates of unreported victimization were similar in 2012 and 2013.
In comparison, overall rates of property crime reported and not reported to police declined from 2012 to 2013. The overall rate of property crime reported to police decreased from 52.2 to 47.4 victimizations per 1,000 households. This decline was driven largely by a decrease in thefts reported to police from 2012 (31.9 per 1,000) to 2013 (28.7 per 1,000). The rate of unreported property crime declined from 101.9 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 83.1 per 1,000 in 2013. Among specific crime types that went unreported, the rate of unreported burglaries
declined from 13.2 per 1,000 in 2012 to 10.9 in 2013, and the rate of unreported theft decreased from 87.7 to 71.0 victimizations per 1,000 households. There was no change in the rate of reported or unreported motor vehicle theft victimizations from 2012 to 2013.
**********************************
In 2013, 10% of violent crime victims received assistance from a victim service agency
**********************************
Victim service agencies are publicly or privately funded organizations that provide victims with support and services to aid their physical and emotional recovery, offer protection from future victimizations, guide them through the criminal justice system process, and assist them in obtaining restitution. In 2013, about 10% of victims of violent crime received assistance from a victim service agency, which was not statistically different from 2012 (table 8). There was also no statistical difference in the percentage of victims who received assistance in 2004 compared to 2013. In 2013, a greater percentage of victims of serious violence (14%) received assistance than victims of simple assault (8%).
**********************************
Violent crime decreased for males but did not change significantly for females
**********************************
From 2012 to 2013, the rate of violent victimization for males declined from 29.1 victimizations per 1,000 males to 23.7 per 1,000 (table 9). Unlike in 2012 when males had a higher rate of victimization than females, there was no significant difference in male (23.7 per 1,000) and female (22.7 per 1,000) violent victimization rates in 2013.
The rate of violent victimization for blacks declined from 34.2 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012 to 25.1 per 1,000 in 2013. Both the rates for whites and Hispanics remained flat from 2012 to 2013. Unlike in 2012, the rates of violent crime for blacks (25.1 per 1,000), whites (22.2 per 1,000), and Hispanics (24.8 per 1,000) were similar in 2013 due to the decline in the rates for blacks.
From 2012 to 2013, violent victimization rates declined for persons ages 35 to 49, from 29.1 to 20.3 victimizations per 1,000. There was no measurable change in the rates of violent or serious violent crime for all other age groups. In 2013, persons ages 12 to 17 (52.1 per 1,000) had a higher rate of violent victimization than persons in other age groups.
With the exception of persons who were married, rates of violent victimization remained flat from 2012 to 2013 for persons of all marital statuses. Violent victimization rates for persons who were married decreased from 13.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 10.7 per 1,000 in 2013. Persons who were married (10.7 per 1,000) had a lower rate of violence than persons who were never married (36.3 per 1,000), divorced (34.4 per 1,000), or separated (73.2 per 1,000). Persons who were separated had the highest rate of violence in 2013. The NCVS collects information on a respondent’s marital status at the time of the
interview but does not obtain marital status at the time of the incident. For example, persons who are separated may have experienced a victimization while married.
Violent victimization in urban areas declined from 2012 to 2013 From 2012 to 2013, the rate of violent victimization for persons living in the South declined slightly, from 22.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons to 18.0 per 1,000 (table 10). The rate of violence in the West declined from 35.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons to 27.3 per 1,000. The declines in these two regions largely accounted for the slight decline in the rate of overall violence, as there were no statistically
significant changes in rates of violent victimization in the Northeast or Midwest from 2012 to 2013. There was a slight increase in the rate of serious violence in the Northeast, from 4.6 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012 to 7.8 per 1,000 in 2013, but no other regions experienced a change in serious violence.
Urban areas accounted for most of the slight decline in the overall rate of violent victimization. The rate of violence declined in urban areas, from 32.4 to 25.9 victimizations per 1,000. There was no measurable change in the rates of violent victimization in suburban or rural areas from 2012 to 2013. Rates of serious violence did not show a statistically significant change in any of the three areas.
From 2012 to 2013, property crime rates decreased in all regions of the country and across urban, suburban, and rural areas. In 2013, property crime rates were highest in the West (182.1 per 1,000) and lowest in the Northeast (92.1 per 1,000). Urban areas (165.3 per 1,000) had a higher rate of property crime than suburban (115.3 per 1,000) and rural (109.4 per 1,000) areas.
**************************************************
**********************************
The NCVS and UCR showed similar Declines in property crime from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
In the first half of 2013, preliminary findings from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program showed a decline in the number of violent and property crimes (table 11). The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) also showed a significant decline in property crime victimization from 2012 to 2013 (down 15%) and a slight decline in violent victimizations (down 10%).
Because the NCVS and UCR measure an overlapping, but not identical, set of offenses and use different methodologies, congruity between the estimates is not expected. Throughout the 40-year history of the NCVS, both programs have generally demonstrated similar year-to-year increases or decreases in the levels of overall violent and property crimes. However, in recent years, this has not always been the case for certain crime types.
As measured by the UCR, violent crime includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The UCR measures crimes known to the police, occurring against both persons and businesses. The FBI obtains data on crimes from law enforcement agencies, while the NCVS collects data through interviews with victims. Additional information about the differences between the two programs can be found in The Nation’s Two Crime Measures (NCJ 246832, BJS web, September 2014).
Significant methodological and definitional differences exist between the NCVS and UCR:
* The NCVS obtains estimates of crimes both reported and not reported to the police, while the UCR collects data on crimes known to and recorded by the police.
*
The UCR includes homicide, arson, and commercial crimes, while the NCVS
excludes these crime types.
* The UCR excludes simple assault and sexual assault, which are included
in the NCVS.***Fotnote *Simple assaults include attacks or attempted
attacks without a weapon resulting in either no injury or minor injury. Sexual assaults include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender that may or may not involve force***.
* The NCVS data are estimates from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households, while the UCR data are estimates based on counts of crimes reported by law enforcement jurisdictions.
* The NCVS excludes crimes against children age 11 or younger, persons in institutions (e.g., nursing homes and correctional institutions), and may exclude highly mobile populations and homeless people. However, victimizations against these persons are included in the UCR.
Given these differences, the two measures of crime should complement each other and provide a more comprehensive picture of crime in the United States.
In the first half of 2013 compared to the same period in 2012, there were consistent declines in UCR violent and property crimes known to police across all crime types. The number of NCVS property crimes reported to police also declined 8% from 2012 to 2013, while the apparent decline in the NCVS estimate of overall violent crime was not statistically significant. Among other NCVS violent crime types, the number of victimizations reported to police did not change significantly
from 2012 to 2013. However, unlike declines in the UCR’s semiannual estimates of forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, the general direction of change in the NCVS estimates of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault appeared to be positive.
**************************************************
**************
Methodology
**************
Survey coverage
****************
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of
information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents.
Survey respondents provide information about themselves (e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced a victimization. The NCVS collects information for each victimization incident about the offender (e.g., age, race and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim–offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not
reported, and victim experiences with the criminal justice system.
The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of persons who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are considered household members when the sampled address is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of seven interviews.
All first interviews are conducted in person with subsequent interviews conducted either in person or by phone. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in the sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings such as correctional or hospital facilities, and homeless persons.
Nonresponse and weighting adjustments
**************************
In 2013, 90,630 households and 160,040 persons age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States were excluded from this report. In 2013, less than 1% of the unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United States and were excluded from the analyses.
Estimates in this report use data from the 1993 to 2013 NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.
The NCVS data files include both person and household weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the population represented by each person in the sample. Household weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household population represented by each household in the sample. After proper adjustment, both household and person weights are also typically used to form the denominator in calculations of crime rates.
Victimization weights used in this analysis account for the number of persons present during an incident and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (i.e., series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed
information on only the most recent incident in the series.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar, regardless of whether series victimizations are included. In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all
victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012).
Standard error computations
****************************
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with the NCVS, it is important to use caution when comparing one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different.
One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a small standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
To generate standard errors around numbers and estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used to generate standard errors for each point estimate (e.g., counts, percentages, and rates) in this report.
BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in estimated numbers, percentages, and rates in this report were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. Using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for significance. The primary test procedure was the Student’s t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. Differences described as higher, lower, or different passed a test at the 0.05 level of statistical significance (95% confidence level). Differences described as somewhat, slightly, or marginally different, or with some indication of difference, passed a test at the 0.10 level of statistical significance (90% confidence level). Caution is required when comparing estimates not explicitly
discussed in this report.
Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error. The following example illustrates how standard errors can be used to generate confidence intervals:
*According to the NCVS, in 2013, the violent victimization rate among persons age 12 or older was 23.2 per 1,000 persons (see table 1). Using the GVFs, it was determined that the estimated victimization rate has a standard error of 1.6 (see appendix table 2). A confidence interval around the estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around the 23.2 estimate from 2013 is 23.2 ± (1.6 X 1.96) or (20.0 to 26.3). In others words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population in 2013, 95% of the time the violent victimization rate would fall between 20.1 and 26.3 per 1,000 persons.
In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases in which the CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006
***************************
Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal Victimization,
2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; Criminal Victimization, 2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012; and Criminal Victimization, 2012, NCJ 243389, October 2013 are available on the BJS website.
*************************************************
The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems
in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director.
This report was written by Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D. and Lynn Langton, Ph.D. Erika Harrell verified the report.
Lockheed Martin, Jill Thomas, and Morgan Young edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report.
September 2014, NCJ 247648
*************************************************
*************************************************
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
*************************************************
**********************
9/4/2014/JER/2:50
**********************
U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics
-------------------------------------------------------
This file is text only without graphics and many of the tables. A Zip archive of the tables in this report in spreadsheet format (.csv) and the full report including
tables and graphics in .pdf format are available on BJS website at:
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=5111
This report is one in a series. More recent editions may be available. To view a list of all in the series go to http://bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbse&sid=6
-------------------------------------------------------
Bulletin
Criminal Victimization, 2013
Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D., and Lynn Langton, Ph.D., BJS Statisticians
In 2013, U.S. residents age 12 or older experienced an estimated 6.1 million violent victimizations and 16.8 million property victimizations, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics’ (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). After two consecutive years of increases, the overall violent crime rate (which includes rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) declined slightly, from 26.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 23.2 per 1,000 in 2013 (figure 1). The slight decline in simple assault accounted for about 80% of the change in total violence. The rate of violent crime in 2013 was similar to the rate in 2011 (22.6 per 1,000). Since 1993, the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older.
The overall property crime rate (which includes household burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft) decreased from 155.8 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 131.4 victimizations per 1,000 in 2013. The decline in theft accounted for the majority of the decrease in property crime. Since 1993, the rate of property crime has declined from 351.8 to 131.4 victimizations per 1,000 households.
**************************************************
************
HIGHLIGHTS
************
Violent crime
***************
* The rate of violent crime declined slightly from 26.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 23.2 per 1,000 in 2013. [A drop of 11.1% in one year doesn’t sound slight to me. Why hide your light under a bushel?]
* No statistically significant change was detected in the rate of serious violent crime (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault) from 2012 to 2013 (7.3 per 1,000).
* From 2012 to 2013, no statistically significant changes occurred in the rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, violence resulting in an injury, or violence involving a firearm.
* Violent crimes committed by a stranger decreased from 10.3 per 1,000 in 2012 to 7.9 per 1,000 in 2013.
* In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations and 61% of serious violent victimizations were reported to police.
Property crime
*****************
* The rate of property crime decreased from 155.8 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 131.4 per 1,000 in 2013.
Prevalence of crime
*********************
* In 2013, 1.2% of all persons age 12 or older (3 million persons) experienced at least one violent victimization. About 0.4% (1.1 million persons) experienced at least one serious violent victimization.
* The prevalence rate of violent victimization declined from 1.4% of all persons age 12 or older in 2012 to 1.2% in 2013.
* In 2013, 9% of all households (11.5 million households) experienced one or more property victimizations.
**************************************************
***************************************
No significant change occurred in the rate of serious violent crime
from 2012 to 2013
***************************************
There was no statistically significant change in the rate of serious violent crime—defined as rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault—from 2012 (8.0 per 1,000) to 2013 (7.3 per 1,000) (table 1). In 2013, the rates of total violent crime and serious violent crime were lower than the rates observed a decade earlier in 2004.
**************************************************
**********************************
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
**********************************
The NCVS collects information on nonfatal crimes reported and not reported to the police against persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households. Initial NCVS interviews are conducted in person with subsequent interviews conducted either in person or by phone. In 2013, the response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. The NCVS produces national rates and levels of violent and property victimization, as well as information on the characteristics of crimes and victims, and the consequences of victimization. Since NCVS is based on interviews with victims, it does not measure homicide.
The NCVS measures the violent crimes of rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. The NCVS classifies rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault as serious violent crimes.
Property crimes include household burglary, motor vehicle theft, and theft. The survey also measures personal larceny, which includes pickpocketing and purse snatching. For additional estimates not included in this report, see the NCVS Victimization Analysis Tool (NVAT) on the BJS website.
Victimization is the basic unit of analysis used throughout most of this report. A victimization is a crime as it affects one person or household. For personal crimes, the number of victimizations is equal to the number of victims present during a criminal incident. The number of victimizations may be greater than the number of incidents because more than one person may be victimized during an incident. Each crime against a household is counted as having a single victim—the affected household.
The victimization rate is a measure of the occurrence of victimizations among a specified population group. For personal crimes, the victimization rate is based on the number of victimizations per 1,000 residents age 12 or older. For household crimes, the victimization rate is calculated using the number of incidents per 1,000 households. Estimates are presented for 2013, 2012, and then for 2004, the 10-year
change.
**************************************************
**********************************
Violence committed by a stranger decreased from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
The rate of domestic violence—crime committed by intimate partners and family members—remained flat from 2012 to 2013 (4.2 per 1,000). No measurable change was detected from 2012 to 2013 in rates of intimate partner violence (2.8 per 1,000), which includes victimizations committed by current or former spouses, boyfriends, or girlfriends.
Violent victimizations committed by a stranger decreased from 10.3 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 7.9 per 1,000 in 2013. The rates of domestic violence, intimate partner violence, and violence committed by a stranger in 2013 were lower than rates in 2004. No statistically significant difference was found in the rates of serious violent crime involving weapons (4.4 per 1,000) or resulting in injury to the victim (2.8 per 1,000) from 2012 to 2013. The rate of serious violent crime involving weapons in 2013 was lower than the rate in 2004.
**********************************
No statistically significant change occurred in firearm violence from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
There was no statistically significant change in the rate of firearm violence from 2012 (1.8 per 1,000) to 2013 (1.3 per 1,000) (table 2). The rate of firearm violence in 2013 was slightly lower than the rate in 2004 (1.9 per 1,000). In 2013, there were 332,950 nonfatal firearm victimizations, compared to 460,720 in 2012. In 2013, about 75% of all serious violent crimes that involved a firearm were reported to police. There was no measurable change in the percentage of firearm violence
reported to police from 2012 to 2013.
**********************************
Thefts accounted for the majority of the decrease in property crime
**********************************
After increasing for 2 years, the number and rate of property crime victimization decreased from 2012 to 2013 (table 3). The rate of property crime victimization decreased from 155.8 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 131.4 per 1,000 in 2013, and was driven primarily by a decrease in theft. The rate of theft
decreased from 120.9 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 100.5 per 1,000 in 2013. The rate of household burglary decreased from 29.9 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 25.7 per 1,000 in 2013, while no measurable change occurred in the rate of motor vehicle theft during the same period (about 5 per 1,000). In 2013, the rates of property crime, burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft were lower than the rates in 2004.
**************************************************
**********************
Prevalence of crime
**********************
Annual estimates of a population’s risk for criminal victimization can be examined using victimization rates or prevalence rates. Historically, BJS reports using NCVS data rely on victimization rates, which measure the extent to which victimizations occur in a specified population during a specific time. Victimization rates are used throughout this bulletin. For crimes affecting persons, NCVS victimization rates are estimated by dividing the number of victimizations that occur during a specified time (T) by the population at risk for those victimizations and multiplying the rate by 1,000.
Number of victimizations experienced by a specified population T
Victimization rate T = Number of persons in the specified populationT
Prevalence rates also describe the level of victimization but are based on the number of unique persons (or households) in the population who experienced at least one victimization during a specified time. The key distinction between a victimization rate and a prevalence rate is whether the numerator consists of the number of victimizations or the number of victims. For example, a person who experienced two robberies on separate occasions within the past year would be counted twice in the victimization rate but counted once in the prevalence rate. Prevalence rates are estimated by dividing the number of victims in the specified
population by the total number of persons in the population and multiplying the rate by 100. This is the percentage of the population victimized at least once in a given period.
Number of victims in a specified population T
Prevalence rate T = Number of persons in the specified population T
Victimization and prevalence rates may also be produced for household crimes, such as burglary. In these instances, the numerators and denominators are adjusted to reflect households rather than persons. To better understand the percentage of the population that is victimized at least once in a given period, prevalence rates are presented by type of crime and certain demographic characteristics. (For further information about measuring prevalence in the NCVS, see Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 241656, BJS web, September 2013).
**********************************
In 2013, 0.4% of all persons age 2 or older experienced serious violence
**********************************
In 2013, 1.2% of all persons age 12 or older (3 million persons) experienced at least one violent victimization (table 4). During the same period, about 0.4% of all persons age 12 or older (1.1 million persons) experienced at least one serious violent victimization (rape or sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault). The prevalence rate of violent victimization declined from 1.4% of all persons age 12 or older in 2012 to 1.2% in 2013. No measurable change occurred in the prevalence rate of serious violent victimization from 2012 to 2013. During the same period, prevalence rates of robbery (0.1%) and simple assault (0.8%) also declined.
Less than 1% of all persons age 12 or older experienced one or more domestic violence (0.2%) or intimate partner violence (0.1%) victimizations in 2013. No measurable change occurred in the prevalence rates of domestic violence and intimate partner violence from 2012 to 2013. The prevalence of violence committed by strangers declined from 0.6% of all persons age 12 or older in 2012 to 0.5% in 2013.
In 2013, 9.0% of all households (11.5 million households) experienced one or more property victimizations. The prevalence rate of property victimization declined from 10.4% in 2012 to 9.0% in 2013. During the same period, the prevalence of household burglary and theft also declined. Similar to the property victimization rate, the decline in the prevalence rate of theft accounted for the majority of the decline in the prevalence rate of property victimization.
**********************************
Persons ages 12 to 17 had the highest prevalence of violence (2.2%)of all age groups in 2013
**********************************
In 2013, 1.2% of all males age 12 or older (1.6 million males) and 1.1% of all females (1.5 million females) experienced one or more violent victimizations (table 5). While the prevalence rate declined for both males and females from 2012 to 2013, a slightly higher percentage of males (1.2%) than females (1.1%) were victims of one or more violent crimes in 2013.
In 2013, about 57,300 Asians experienced one or more violent crimes during the year and had the lowest prevalence rate (0.4%) of the U.S. population. The percentage of the population who experienced violence was highest among American Indians or Alaska Natives (2.8%), accounting for 38,310 crime victims, and persons of two or more races (3.6%), accounting for 114,190 crime victims. Although there were over 3 times more white victims (1.9 million) than black (430,380) and Hispanic (540,130) victims in 2013, blacks (1.3%) and Hispanics (1.3%) had higher prevalence rates than whites (1.1%). This was a shift from 2004, when Hispanics (1.2%) had a lower prevalence rate than both whites (1.5%) and
blacks (1.7%).
The prevalence of violence declined for whites, blacks, and Asians from 2012 to 2013. Among Hispanics and American Indians or Alaska Natives, there was no significant change in the percentage of the population that experienced one or more violent crimes during the year. Among persons of two or more races, the prevalence rate increased from 2.0% of the population experiencing violence in 2012 to 3.6% in 2013.
In 2013, 545,370 persons ages 12 to 17, or about 2.2% of all persons ages 12 to 17, experienced at least one violent crime. Persons ages 12 to 17 had the highest prevalence of violence of all age groups. In comparison, persons age 65 or older had the lowest prevalence rate with 0.3% of the population experiencing one or more violent crimes. From 2012 to 2013, the prevalence of violent crime declined for persons ages 18 to 24, ages 25 to 34, and age 65 or older.
Persons who were never married had a higher prevalence rate of violence (1.8%) than persons who were married (0.6%). Persons who were separated had the highest prevalence of violence, with 3.3% experiencing one or more violent crimes. From 2012 to 2013, the prevalence of violence declined among both persons who were never married and persons who were married, but the rate remained flat for persons of all other marital statuses.
**************************************************
***************************************
In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations were reported to police
***************************************
The NCVS allows for an examination of crimes reported and not reported to police. Victims may not report the victimization for a variety of reasons, including fear of reprisal or getting the offender in trouble, believing that police would not or could not do anything to help, and believing the crime to be a personal issue or trivial. Police notification can come from the victim, a third party (including witnesses, other victims, household members, or other officials, such as school officials or workplace managers), or police being at the scene of the incident. Police notification may occur during or immediately following a criminal incident or at a later date.
From 2012 to 2013, there was no statistically significant change in the percentage of violent and serious violent victimizations reported to police (table 6). In 2013, 46% of violent victimizations and 61% of serious violent victimizations were reported to police. A greater percentage of robbery (68%) and aggravated assault (64%) were reported to police than simple assault (38%) and rape or sexual assault (35%) victimizations.
From 2012 to 2013, the percentage of property victimizations reported to police increased from 34% to 36%. The percentage of reported thefts increased from 26% to 29% during the same period, accounting for the majority of the increase in the overall percentage of property victimizations reported to police. No measurable change was detected in the percentage of burglaries and motor vehicle thefts reported to police from 2012 to 2013. Similar to previous years, a larger percentage of motor vehicle thefts (75%) than burglaries (57%) and other thefts (29%) were reported to police in 2013.
**********************************
Rates of property crime reported and not reported to police declined from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
From 2012 to 2013, no differences were detected in the overall rates of violence reported and not reported to police (table 7). Among violent and serious violent victimizations reported to police, the only significant change from 2012 to 2013 was in the rate of violence committed by a stranger, which declined slightly from 5.1 to 3.9 victimizations per 1,000 persons age 12 or older. There was no significant change in the rates of domestic violence or intimate partner violence reported to police from 2012 to 2013. Among violent victimizations not reported to police, the rates of robbery, violence and serious violence committed by a stranger, and serious violent crime involving weapons declined from 2012 to 2013. The rates of robbery declined slightly from 1.2 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012 to 0.8 per 1,000 in 2013. The rates of unreported violence committed by a stranger declined slightly from 5.0 per 1,000 in 2012 to 3.8 per 1,000 in 2013. For other types of violence, the rates of unreported victimization were similar in 2012 and 2013.
In comparison, overall rates of property crime reported and not reported to police declined from 2012 to 2013. The overall rate of property crime reported to police decreased from 52.2 to 47.4 victimizations per 1,000 households. This decline was driven largely by a decrease in thefts reported to police from 2012 (31.9 per 1,000) to 2013 (28.7 per 1,000). The rate of unreported property crime declined from 101.9 victimizations per 1,000 households in 2012 to 83.1 per 1,000 in 2013. Among specific crime types that went unreported, the rate of unreported burglaries
declined from 13.2 per 1,000 in 2012 to 10.9 in 2013, and the rate of unreported theft decreased from 87.7 to 71.0 victimizations per 1,000 households. There was no change in the rate of reported or unreported motor vehicle theft victimizations from 2012 to 2013.
**********************************
In 2013, 10% of violent crime victims received assistance from a victim service agency
**********************************
Victim service agencies are publicly or privately funded organizations that provide victims with support and services to aid their physical and emotional recovery, offer protection from future victimizations, guide them through the criminal justice system process, and assist them in obtaining restitution. In 2013, about 10% of victims of violent crime received assistance from a victim service agency, which was not statistically different from 2012 (table 8). There was also no statistical difference in the percentage of victims who received assistance in 2004 compared to 2013. In 2013, a greater percentage of victims of serious violence (14%) received assistance than victims of simple assault (8%).
**********************************
Violent crime decreased for males but did not change significantly for females
**********************************
From 2012 to 2013, the rate of violent victimization for males declined from 29.1 victimizations per 1,000 males to 23.7 per 1,000 (table 9). Unlike in 2012 when males had a higher rate of victimization than females, there was no significant difference in male (23.7 per 1,000) and female (22.7 per 1,000) violent victimization rates in 2013.
The rate of violent victimization for blacks declined from 34.2 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012 to 25.1 per 1,000 in 2013. Both the rates for whites and Hispanics remained flat from 2012 to 2013. Unlike in 2012, the rates of violent crime for blacks (25.1 per 1,000), whites (22.2 per 1,000), and Hispanics (24.8 per 1,000) were similar in 2013 due to the decline in the rates for blacks.
From 2012 to 2013, violent victimization rates declined for persons ages 35 to 49, from 29.1 to 20.3 victimizations per 1,000. There was no measurable change in the rates of violent or serious violent crime for all other age groups. In 2013, persons ages 12 to 17 (52.1 per 1,000) had a higher rate of violent victimization than persons in other age groups.
With the exception of persons who were married, rates of violent victimization remained flat from 2012 to 2013 for persons of all marital statuses. Violent victimization rates for persons who were married decreased from 13.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons in 2012 to 10.7 per 1,000 in 2013. Persons who were married (10.7 per 1,000) had a lower rate of violence than persons who were never married (36.3 per 1,000), divorced (34.4 per 1,000), or separated (73.2 per 1,000). Persons who were separated had the highest rate of violence in 2013. The NCVS collects information on a respondent’s marital status at the time of the
interview but does not obtain marital status at the time of the incident. For example, persons who are separated may have experienced a victimization while married.
Violent victimization in urban areas declined from 2012 to 2013 From 2012 to 2013, the rate of violent victimization for persons living in the South declined slightly, from 22.1 victimizations per 1,000 persons to 18.0 per 1,000 (table 10). The rate of violence in the West declined from 35.5 victimizations per 1,000 persons to 27.3 per 1,000. The declines in these two regions largely accounted for the slight decline in the rate of overall violence, as there were no statistically
significant changes in rates of violent victimization in the Northeast or Midwest from 2012 to 2013. There was a slight increase in the rate of serious violence in the Northeast, from 4.6 victimizations per 1,000 in 2012 to 7.8 per 1,000 in 2013, but no other regions experienced a change in serious violence.
Urban areas accounted for most of the slight decline in the overall rate of violent victimization. The rate of violence declined in urban areas, from 32.4 to 25.9 victimizations per 1,000. There was no measurable change in the rates of violent victimization in suburban or rural areas from 2012 to 2013. Rates of serious violence did not show a statistically significant change in any of the three areas.
From 2012 to 2013, property crime rates decreased in all regions of the country and across urban, suburban, and rural areas. In 2013, property crime rates were highest in the West (182.1 per 1,000) and lowest in the Northeast (92.1 per 1,000). Urban areas (165.3 per 1,000) had a higher rate of property crime than suburban (115.3 per 1,000) and rural (109.4 per 1,000) areas.
**************************************************
**********************************
The NCVS and UCR showed similar Declines in property crime from 2012 to 2013
**********************************
In the first half of 2013, preliminary findings from the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program showed a decline in the number of violent and property crimes (table 11). The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) also showed a significant decline in property crime victimization from 2012 to 2013 (down 15%) and a slight decline in violent victimizations (down 10%).
Because the NCVS and UCR measure an overlapping, but not identical, set of offenses and use different methodologies, congruity between the estimates is not expected. Throughout the 40-year history of the NCVS, both programs have generally demonstrated similar year-to-year increases or decreases in the levels of overall violent and property crimes. However, in recent years, this has not always been the case for certain crime types.
As measured by the UCR, violent crime includes murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Property crime includes burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The UCR measures crimes known to the police, occurring against both persons and businesses. The FBI obtains data on crimes from law enforcement agencies, while the NCVS collects data through interviews with victims. Additional information about the differences between the two programs can be found in The Nation’s Two Crime Measures (NCJ 246832, BJS web, September 2014).
Significant methodological and definitional differences exist between the NCVS and UCR:
* The NCVS obtains estimates of crimes both reported and not reported to the police, while the UCR collects data on crimes known to and recorded by the police.
*
The UCR includes homicide, arson, and commercial crimes, while the NCVS
excludes these crime types.
* The UCR excludes simple assault and sexual assault, which are included
in the NCVS.***Fotnote *Simple assaults include attacks or attempted
attacks without a weapon resulting in either no injury or minor injury. Sexual assaults include attacks or attempted attacks generally involving unwanted sexual contact between the victim and offender that may or may not involve force***.
* The NCVS data are estimates from a nationally representative sample of U.S. households, while the UCR data are estimates based on counts of crimes reported by law enforcement jurisdictions.
* The NCVS excludes crimes against children age 11 or younger, persons in institutions (e.g., nursing homes and correctional institutions), and may exclude highly mobile populations and homeless people. However, victimizations against these persons are included in the UCR.
Given these differences, the two measures of crime should complement each other and provide a more comprehensive picture of crime in the United States.
In the first half of 2013 compared to the same period in 2012, there were consistent declines in UCR violent and property crimes known to police across all crime types. The number of NCVS property crimes reported to police also declined 8% from 2012 to 2013, while the apparent decline in the NCVS estimate of overall violent crime was not statistically significant. Among other NCVS violent crime types, the number of victimizations reported to police did not change significantly
from 2012 to 2013. However, unlike declines in the UCR’s semiannual estimates of forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, the general direction of change in the NCVS estimates of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault appeared to be positive.
**************************************************
**************
Methodology
**************
Survey coverage
****************
The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is an annual data collection conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The NCVS is a self-report survey in which interviewed persons are asked about the number and characteristics of victimizations experienced during the prior 6 months. The NCVS collects information on nonfatal personal crimes (rape or sexual assault, robbery, aggravated and simple assault, and personal larceny) and household property crimes (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and other theft) both reported and not reported to police. In addition to providing annual level and change estimates on criminal victimization, the NCVS is the primary source of
information on the nature of criminal victimization incidents.
Survey respondents provide information about themselves (e.g., age, sex, race and Hispanic origin, marital status, education level, and income) and whether they experienced a victimization. The NCVS collects information for each victimization incident about the offender (e.g., age, race and Hispanic origin, sex, and victim–offender relationship), characteristics of the crime (including time and place of occurrence, use of weapons, nature of injury, and economic consequences), whether the crime was reported to police, reasons the crime was or was not
reported, and victim experiences with the criminal justice system.
The NCVS is administered to persons age 12 or older from a nationally representative sample of households in the United States. The NCVS defines a household as a group of persons who all reside at a sampled address. Persons are considered household members when the sampled address is their usual place of residence at the time of the interview and when they have no usual place of residence elsewhere. Once selected, households remain in the sample for 3 years, and eligible persons in these households are interviewed every 6 months either in person or over the phone for a total of seven interviews.
All first interviews are conducted in person with subsequent interviews conducted either in person or by phone. New households rotate into the sample on an ongoing basis to replace outgoing households that have been in the sample for the 3-year period. The sample includes persons living in group quarters, such as dormitories, rooming houses, and religious group dwellings, and excludes persons living in military barracks and institutional settings such as correctional or hospital facilities, and homeless persons.
Nonresponse and weighting adjustments
**************************
In 2013, 90,630 households and 160,040 persons age 12 or older were interviewed for the NCVS. Each household was interviewed twice during the year. The response rate was 84% for households and 88% for eligible persons. Victimizations that occurred outside of the United States were excluded from this report. In 2013, less than 1% of the unweighted victimizations occurred outside of the United States and were excluded from the analyses.
Estimates in this report use data from the 1993 to 2013 NCVS data files, weighted to produce annual estimates of victimization for persons age 12 or older living in U.S. households. Because the NCVS relies on a sample rather than a census of the entire U.S. population, weights are designed to inflate sample point estimates to known population totals and to compensate for survey nonresponse and other aspects of the sample design.
The NCVS data files include both person and household weights. Person weights provide an estimate of the population represented by each person in the sample. Household weights provide an estimate of the U.S. household population represented by each household in the sample. After proper adjustment, both household and person weights are also typically used to form the denominator in calculations of crime rates.
Victimization weights used in this analysis account for the number of persons present during an incident and for high-frequency repeat victimizations (i.e., series victimizations). Series victimizations are similar in type but occur with such frequency that a victim is unable to recall each individual event or describe each event in detail. Survey procedures allow NCVS interviewers to identify and classify these similar victimizations as series victimizations and to collect detailed
information on only the most recent incident in the series.
The weight counts series incidents as the actual number of incidents reported by the victim, up to a maximum of 10 incidents. Including series victimizations in national rates results in large increases in the level of violent victimization; however, trends in violence are generally similar, regardless of whether series victimizations are included. In 2013, series incidents accounted for about 1% of all
victimizations and 4% of all violent victimizations. Weighting series incidents as the number of incidents up to a maximum of 10 incidents produces more reliable estimates of crime levels, while the cap at 10 minimizes the effect of extreme outliers on rates. Additional information on the series enumeration is detailed in the report Methods for Counting High-Frequency Repeat Victimizations in the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCJ 237308, BJS web, April 2012).
Standard error computations
****************************
When national estimates are derived from a sample, as with the NCVS, it is important to use caution when comparing one estimate to another estimate or when comparing estimates over time. Although one estimate may be larger than another, estimates based on a sample have some degree of sampling error. The sampling error of an estimate depends on several factors, including the amount of variation in the responses and the size of the sample. When the sampling error around an estimate is taken into account, the estimates that appear different may not be statistically different.
One measure of the sampling error associated with an estimate is the standard error. The standard error can vary from one estimate to the next. Generally, an estimate with a small standard error provides a more reliable approximation of the true value than an estimate with a large standard error. Estimates with relatively large standard errors are associated with less precision and reliability and should be interpreted with caution.
To generate standard errors around numbers and estimates from the NCVS, the Census Bureau produced generalized variance function (GVF) parameters for BJS. The GVFs take into account aspects of the NCVS complex sample design and represent the curve fitted to a selection of individual standard errors based on the Jackknife Repeated Replication technique. The GVF parameters were used to generate standard errors for each point estimate (e.g., counts, percentages, and rates) in this report.
BJS conducted tests to determine whether differences in estimated numbers, percentages, and rates in this report were statistically significant once sampling error was taken into account. Using statistical programs developed specifically for the NCVS, all comparisons in the text were tested for significance. The primary test procedure was the Student’s t-statistic, which tests the difference between two sample estimates. Differences described as higher, lower, or different passed a test at the 0.05 level of statistical significance (95% confidence level). Differences described as somewhat, slightly, or marginally different, or with some indication of difference, passed a test at the 0.10 level of statistical significance (90% confidence level). Caution is required when comparing estimates not explicitly
discussed in this report.
Data users can use the estimates and the standard errors of the estimates provided in this report to generate a confidence interval around the estimate as a measure of the margin of error. The following example illustrates how standard errors can be used to generate confidence intervals:
*According to the NCVS, in 2013, the violent victimization rate among persons age 12 or older was 23.2 per 1,000 persons (see table 1). Using the GVFs, it was determined that the estimated victimization rate has a standard error of 1.6 (see appendix table 2). A confidence interval around the estimate was generated by multiplying the standard errors by ±1.96 (the t-score of a normal, two-tailed distribution that excludes 2.5% at either end of the distribution). Therefore, the 95% confidence interval around the 23.2 estimate from 2013 is 23.2 ± (1.6 X 1.96) or (20.0 to 26.3). In others words, if different samples using the same procedures were taken from the U.S. population in 2013, 95% of the time the violent victimization rate would fall between 20.1 and 26.3 per 1,000 persons.
In this report, BJS also calculated a coefficient of variation (CV) for all estimates, representing the ratio of the standard error to the estimate. CVs provide a measure of reliability and a means to compare the precision of estimates across measures with differing levels or metrics. In cases in which the CV was greater than 50%, or the unweighted sample had 10 or fewer cases, the estimate was noted with a “!” symbol (Interpret data with caution. Estimate based on 10 or fewer sample cases, or the coefficient of variation is greater than 50%).
Methodological changes to the NCVS in 2006
***************************
Methodological changes implemented in 2006 may have affected the crime estimates for that year to such an extent that they are not comparable to estimates from other years. Evaluation of 2007 and later data from the NCVS conducted by BJS and the Census Bureau found a high degree of confidence that estimates for 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013 are consistent with and comparable to estimates for 2005 and previous years. The reports, Criminal Victimization, 2006, NCJ 219413, December 2007; Criminal Victimization, 2007, NCJ 224390, December 2008; Criminal Victimization, 2008, NCJ 227777, September 2009; Criminal Victimization, 2009, NCJ 231327, October 2010; Criminal Victimization,
2010, NCJ 235508, September 2011; Criminal Victimization, 2011, NCJ 239437, October 2012; and Criminal Victimization, 2012, NCJ 243389, October 2013 are available on the BJS website.
*************************************************
The Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice is the principal federal agency responsible for measuring crime, criminal victimization, criminal offenders, victims of crime, correlates of crime, and the operation of criminal and civil justice systems at the federal, state, tribal, and local levels. BJS collects, analyzes, and disseminates reliable and valid statistics on crime and justice systems
in the United States, supports improvements to state and local criminal justice information systems, and participates with national and international organizations to develop and recommend national standards for justice statistics. William J. Sabol is acting director.
This report was written by Jennifer L. Truman, Ph.D. and Lynn Langton, Ph.D. Erika Harrell verified the report.
Lockheed Martin, Jill Thomas, and Morgan Young edited the report. Barbara Quinn produced the report.
September 2014, NCJ 247648
*************************************************
*************************************************
Office of Justice Programs
Innovation * Partnerships * Safer Neighborhoods
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
*************************************************
**********************
9/4/2014/JER/2:50
**********************
Embittered Huffington Post “Reporter” Lashes Out at Prosecutor Robert McCulloch, for Not Railroading White Crime Victim, Officer Darren (Ham Sandwich) Wilson, for Latter’s Refusal to Die at the Hands of Racist Black Thug, Mike Brown
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Ferguson Prosecutor Robert McCulloch Gives Bizarre Press Conference
By Alana Horowitz
Posted: 11/24/2014 10:04 p.m. EST Updated: 11/25/2014 12:59 a.m. EST
The Huffington Post
St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch announced on Monday night that Ferguson Police Officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in a press conference that many found baffling, unwieldy and inflammatory.
McCulloch said the grand jury "gave up their lives" while deliberating.
The prosecutor also repeatedly lashed out [pathetic word choice] at the media, blaming the internet and "the 24-hour news cycle" for the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, where Brown was shot and killed in August. He continued talking for several minutes before revealing the much-anticipated grand jury decision.
“The most significant challenge encountered in this investigation has been the 24-hour news cycle and its insatiable appetite for something, for anything to talk about, following closely behind with the non-stop rumors on social media,” he said.
Media figures and social media users lashed out at the notion that cable news and Twitter were to blame for the tension in the months following Brown's death, rather than the death itself.
"Social media isn't the problem," author Maureen Johnson said. "Shooting children is the problem."
[No children were shot. That someone would re-define an 18-year-old, 6’4,” 292-lb. man as a “child” tells you everything you need to know about that person’s intellectual integrity.]
CNN legal expert Jeffrey Toobin called the press conference "an extended whine" and "entirely inappropriate and embarrassing."
[Toobin is yet another pathetic lefty who is obviously bitter over the Grand Jury’s refusal to railroad Officer Wilson.]
Friday, November 28, 2014
Ferguson and Kitty Genovese
By Nicholas Stix
270 words. The most succinct essay you’ll ever read tying together two notorious crimes.”
270 words. The most succinct essay you’ll ever read tying together two notorious crimes.”
Nancy Grace Goes from Supporting the Duke Rape Hoax, to the Trayvon Martin Hoax, to the Mike Brown Hoax; She Seeks to Railroad White Victim-Cop Darren Wilson
By Nicholas Stix
A Jonathan Vankin at a site called inquisitr (sic) seeks to present the screamingly PC Grace as a conservative, so as to make her credible to non-leftists.
Nancy Grace is so PC that during a show of hers during the George Zimmerman trial, she kept repeating mockingly that she understood the Second Amendment and all, but that there was no possible reason for George Zimmerman to take his gun with him, when he went to a department store mall to shop the night Trayvon Martin tried to murder him.
And now, she can’t understand how the photograph of Officer Darren Wilson shows a man who’d been punched in the face? Either she’s a bald-faced liar, or she was the world’s most incompetent prosecutor.
Here’s the comment I left:
This is sewage. Nancy Grace is not an extreme law-and-order type, she’s an extreme PC type. She’s not “tough-as-nails,” she’s loud, hysterical, dishonest and abusive towards anyone disagreeing with her. She promoted the Duke Rape Hoax, the Trayvon Martin Hoax, and now she’s promoting the Mike Brown Hoax.
Operative Jonathan Vankin lied about Grace, in order to make Grace’s evil attempt to railroad white policeman-victim Darren Wilson sound credible. When you know the truth, you see that Vankin is lying about Grace, and that Grace is lying about Officer Wilson.
At Inquisitr.
Jim Snow “Rules” at Black Supremacist Mike Brown Rally in Toronto; Whites Must Stand Silently in the Back of the Bus, Without Taking Up Any Space, Unless They are Needed to Assault (“Engage”) Policemen
By Nicholas Stix
At the Daily Mail.
New York Daily News Operative Mike Lupica: Obama Seeks to Railroad White Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson, by Recycling DOJ’s George Zimmerman Talking Points: “Officer Zimmerman”
Re-posted by Nicholas Stix
Since Daily News operative Mike Lupica, when he writes about anything but sports (and often then, as well), is nothing but a DNC-bot, this means that the dictator calling himself “Barack Obama” seeks to railroad white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, and has sent bots like Lupica their talking points, in order to prepare the ground for the lynching to come.
Mike Wilson is Trayvon Martin II.
Lupica: It’s hard to believe Officer Darren Wilson had to kill Michael Brown to stop him
Wilson’s actions look similar to that of George Zimmerman, the wannabe cop with a gun who decided his life was in danger and shot dead Trayvon Martin. But Wilson should have known better. Somehow there has to be a way in this country that shooting to stop an unarmed man, no matter how menacing you think he is, how big he is, doesn’t mean shooting to kill.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 10:42 P.M.
New York Daily News
ABC News Darren Wilson gave ABC his version of the Michael Brown shooting.
In the end, even if you believe Officer Darren Wilson’s version of things about the late Michael Brown looking like a “demon” in the last moments of Brown’s life, it is hard to believe that Wilson had to shoot him dead on the street in Ferguson, Mo. It is why you look at Wilson now and see him as Officer George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman, of course, was a wannabe cop with a gun who decided his life was in danger because of a Florida teenager named Trayvon Martin one night in February 2012, before the 17-year-old in the hooded sweatshirt ended up dead, a gun winning again.
There should have been no encounter between Zimmerman, who ended up being tried and acquitted, and Trayvon Martin because Zimmerman should have left the kid alone that night. Zimmerman didn’t know better because he was just another idiot with a gun, thinking he was a cop in a cop show on television instead of a neighborhood watch volunteer.
[George Zimmerman was a dutiful, diligent man whose neighbors asked him to protect them, and protect them, he did.]
But Officer Darren Wilson could have known better and should have known better, even if the grand jury in Missouri decides not to indict him for anything. Somehow there has to be a way in this country that shooting to stop an unarmed man, no matter how menacing you think he is, how big he is, doesn’t mean shooting to kill.
[This is the sort of fantasy talk we get from racist blacks all the time.]
"Joe Burbank/AP George Zimmerman was a wannabe cop with a gun, and ended up killing a teen."
What you always come back to in this case is why Wilson couldn’t have managed to stop Brown without blowing his head off [no, you don’t], whether Brown had already fought Wilson for his gun in Wilson’s car or not.
This was a very big target for Wilson, in broad daylight in Ferguson, Brown weighing almost 300 pounds, as big as a defensive tackle in the NFL. Why did any of the second flurry of shots from Wilson’s Sig Sauer have to be kill shots? [Because Officer Wilson was seeking to stop Brown. That’s how you stop someone charging you, and trying to murder you. And that’s how cops are trained to shoot in a life-or-death situation. Lupica is clearly implying that Mike Brown had a license to kill, and that Officer Darren Wilson had a duty to die.]
Brown, according to Wilson’s grand jury testimony, made a “grunting, like an aggravated sound” as he prepared to charge Wilson after moving away from the SUV. Then, according to Wilson and various witnesses, Brown did charge, with a clenched fist. That fist, and his size, were his weapons. Wilson had the gun, started shooting, here we are.
Watch Darren Wilson's First TV Interview
E! Online
An indictment would not have been a conviction of Darren Wilson for what happened that day. There just would have been a trial, and should have been a trial, with cameras in the room, so the rest of the country could decide if Michael Brown had to die this way in the street.
I asked an NYPD street cop Tuesday why so many shots at Michael Brown.
“Generally,” he said, “it’s based on whether you need to shoot to stop someone, not the number of shots. Many times a cop has no idea how many rounds he’s fired.”
Officer Darren Wilson was not indicted for killing MIchael [sic] Brown (right), but his case should have gone to trial, Lupica writes.
It would not have made Wilson a monster if he had been told to stand trial, whether he was charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide. But he should have been made to stand trial.
[No, he shouldn’t have, because he committed no crime, aside from breathing while white. Mike Brown, on the other hand, had committed multiple crimes: Felony strong-arm robbery, assault on a police officer, and attempted murder of a policeman.]
None of this justifies what has happened in Ferguson since the decision, or across the country, all the way to protests [sic] in New York City, and the ridiculous decision in this city to close bridges because of the protests here. And because it was a white cop shooting an unarmed [sic; he already admitted that Brown’s body was his weapon, not to mention that he sought to seize Officer
Wilson’s weapon, and murder him with it.] African-American in Missouri doesn’t somehow make it the same as a rookie cop named Peter Liang shooting Akai Gurley in a darkened stairwell in East New York, Brooklyn, last week.
Only hustlers like Assemblyman-elect Charles Barron seem to think that, as Barron continues to act like Al Sharpton on training wheels, as if Barron wants to be famous as much as he wants justice for Akai Gurley.
Alex Rud Charles Barron, seen here, sounds more like the Rev. Al Sharpton in calling for justice in the shooting of Akai Gurley.
There were no easy answers or solutions for that grand jury, because there are never easy answers, for any of these shootings, except for this answer: No one needed to die [wrong! Mike Brown needed to die.], even if you give all honor and benefit of the doubt to any police officer asked to work hard and dangerous streets in this country, and have to make decisions about life and death in the kind of moment that changes everything.
We know now what witnesses saw, or thought they saw that day with Wilson and with Brown. We know that Wilson says that Brown told him, “You are too much of a p---y to shoot me,” after Wilson had told him he was prepared to do just that. Then Wilson did shoot and kept shooting and then Michael Brown was dead, and once more we were reminded, as if we needed reminding, why race in America is the third rail and always will be.
Wilson clearly had decided his life was in danger. We will never know about that, just that in the next moments on that street, more than enough room for tragedy, that Michael Brown was the one whose life was in danger, because a real cop who acted the way a fake one did with Trayvon Martin was the one with the gun. Standing his ground.
[The George Zimmerman case had nothing at all to with Florida’s “Stand Your Ground,” but the DNC and the black supremacists were obsessed with getting them repealed, so they manufactured that talking point. Now, Lupica is dusting it off, and saying that Officer Wilson was standing his ground, rather than engaging in self-defense? After putting down Charles Barron, now Lupica is sounding as stupid as Barron.]
Since Daily News operative Mike Lupica, when he writes about anything but sports (and often then, as well), is nothing but a DNC-bot, this means that the dictator calling himself “Barack Obama” seeks to railroad white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, and has sent bots like Lupica their talking points, in order to prepare the ground for the lynching to come.
Mike Wilson is Trayvon Martin II.
Lupica: It’s hard to believe Officer Darren Wilson had to kill Michael Brown to stop him
Wilson’s actions look similar to that of George Zimmerman, the wannabe cop with a gun who decided his life was in danger and shot dead Trayvon Martin. But Wilson should have known better. Somehow there has to be a way in this country that shooting to stop an unarmed man, no matter how menacing you think he is, how big he is, doesn’t mean shooting to kill.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 10:42 P.M.
New York Daily News
In the end, even if you believe Officer Darren Wilson’s version of things about the late Michael Brown looking like a “demon” in the last moments of Brown’s life, it is hard to believe that Wilson had to shoot him dead on the street in Ferguson, Mo. It is why you look at Wilson now and see him as Officer George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman, of course, was a wannabe cop with a gun who decided his life was in danger because of a Florida teenager named Trayvon Martin one night in February 2012, before the 17-year-old in the hooded sweatshirt ended up dead, a gun winning again.
There should have been no encounter between Zimmerman, who ended up being tried and acquitted, and Trayvon Martin because Zimmerman should have left the kid alone that night. Zimmerman didn’t know better because he was just another idiot with a gun, thinking he was a cop in a cop show on television instead of a neighborhood watch volunteer.
[George Zimmerman was a dutiful, diligent man whose neighbors asked him to protect them, and protect them, he did.]
But Officer Darren Wilson could have known better and should have known better, even if the grand jury in Missouri decides not to indict him for anything. Somehow there has to be a way in this country that shooting to stop an unarmed man, no matter how menacing you think he is, how big he is, doesn’t mean shooting to kill.
[This is the sort of fantasy talk we get from racist blacks all the time.]
What you always come back to in this case is why Wilson couldn’t have managed to stop Brown without blowing his head off [no, you don’t], whether Brown had already fought Wilson for his gun in Wilson’s car or not.
This was a very big target for Wilson, in broad daylight in Ferguson, Brown weighing almost 300 pounds, as big as a defensive tackle in the NFL. Why did any of the second flurry of shots from Wilson’s Sig Sauer have to be kill shots? [Because Officer Wilson was seeking to stop Brown. That’s how you stop someone charging you, and trying to murder you. And that’s how cops are trained to shoot in a life-or-death situation. Lupica is clearly implying that Mike Brown had a license to kill, and that Officer Darren Wilson had a duty to die.]
Brown, according to Wilson’s grand jury testimony, made a “grunting, like an aggravated sound” as he prepared to charge Wilson after moving away from the SUV. Then, according to Wilson and various witnesses, Brown did charge, with a clenched fist. That fist, and his size, were his weapons. Wilson had the gun, started shooting, here we are.
Watch Darren Wilson's First TV Interview
E! Online
An indictment would not have been a conviction of Darren Wilson for what happened that day. There just would have been a trial, and should have been a trial, with cameras in the room, so the rest of the country could decide if Michael Brown had to die this way in the street.
I asked an NYPD street cop Tuesday why so many shots at Michael Brown.
“Generally,” he said, “it’s based on whether you need to shoot to stop someone, not the number of shots. Many times a cop has no idea how many rounds he’s fired.”
It would not have made Wilson a monster if he had been told to stand trial, whether he was charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide. But he should have been made to stand trial.
[No, he shouldn’t have, because he committed no crime, aside from breathing while white. Mike Brown, on the other hand, had committed multiple crimes: Felony strong-arm robbery, assault on a police officer, and attempted murder of a policeman.]
None of this justifies what has happened in Ferguson since the decision, or across the country, all the way to protests [sic] in New York City, and the ridiculous decision in this city to close bridges because of the protests here. And because it was a white cop shooting an unarmed [sic; he already admitted that Brown’s body was his weapon, not to mention that he sought to seize Officer
Wilson’s weapon, and murder him with it.] African-American in Missouri doesn’t somehow make it the same as a rookie cop named Peter Liang shooting Akai Gurley in a darkened stairwell in East New York, Brooklyn, last week.
Only hustlers like Assemblyman-elect Charles Barron seem to think that, as Barron continues to act like Al Sharpton on training wheels, as if Barron wants to be famous as much as he wants justice for Akai Gurley.
There were no easy answers or solutions for that grand jury, because there are never easy answers, for any of these shootings, except for this answer: No one needed to die [wrong! Mike Brown needed to die.], even if you give all honor and benefit of the doubt to any police officer asked to work hard and dangerous streets in this country, and have to make decisions about life and death in the kind of moment that changes everything.
We know now what witnesses saw, or thought they saw that day with Wilson and with Brown. We know that Wilson says that Brown told him, “You are too much of a p---y to shoot me,” after Wilson had told him he was prepared to do just that. Then Wilson did shoot and kept shooting and then Michael Brown was dead, and once more we were reminded, as if we needed reminding, why race in America is the third rail and always will be.
Wilson clearly had decided his life was in danger. We will never know about that, just that in the next moments on that street, more than enough room for tragedy, that Michael Brown was the one whose life was in danger, because a real cop who acted the way a fake one did with Trayvon Martin was the one with the gun. Standing his ground.
[The George Zimmerman case had nothing at all to with Florida’s “Stand Your Ground,” but the DNC and the black supremacists were obsessed with getting them repealed, so they manufactured that talking point. Now, Lupica is dusting it off, and saying that Officer Wilson was standing his ground, rather than engaging in self-defense? After putting down Charles Barron, now Lupica is sounding as stupid as Barron.]