Now you might understand why I may have only have 1 of my cat's lives left. When I was young my curiosity (and stupidity) should have earned me a Darwin Award. A couple of examples, one was we used to settle disputes with other youth gangs by duels fought to first blood with everything from clubs, knives, darts, almost anything that drew blood. One weapon was a cigarette gun that was used in duels. They were basically a mall section of steel pipe, taped to a wood handle, with one end caped and drilled with a 1/8" hole. They would be loaded using a silver salute with the fuse pushed through the hole and a ball bearing dropped in wrapped in tissue (to prevent it from rolling out). Then, like the movies/myths, back to back, eight paces, at some point the fuse would be ignited with a cigarette (thus the name). You could only turn to fire at eight paces, but the fuses were never precise. Then turn, hold, and.... I fought one of those duels... was shot, the bearing cut a grove in my leg near my knee. We lost a hangout over that. BTW, lots could and did go wrong. Another bit of stupidity. When about 14, I acquired a flintlock, around .60-70 cal I think. Using home made black powder, we shot it for a few weeks one summer. It wasn't accurate, but tore up much of what it hit. In those days, I had no concept of a safe load ... and load measures, never heard of one? If I had a powder horn, I am sure I'd have poured directly from it..Lol. Dump powder down barrel, load ball and shoot right? Make it more powerful by adding powder, right. Only did a lanyard test once, near the end of the summer...had loaded with bunch powder, had a funny feeling, so tied it to a tree and used a piece of string. No more gun. Could have been worse, my stupidity could have taken it's rightful toll. Looking back... well, humorous, but not. Know what your kids are doing? Really?
Oh, you mean proof that the idea (that UK murders are "not counted as a murder unless the guilty party is actually convicted") is based on false or incomplete information? Firstly, my actual words were "This is a myth, based on a partial quote from an almost 20-year-old parliamentary "witness" memo which (as a full quote makes clear) refers to one (unspecified) part of crime statistics." I presume you're at least familiar with the memo - this line is commonly cited to support the assertion UK murders aren't murders without a conviction: "Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction." Expanded, it reads as follows: "Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent. The adjustment is made only in respect of figures shown in one part of the Annual Criminal Statistics. In another part relating to the use of firearms, no adjustment is made." As I said, refers to one (unspecified) part of crime statistics.
However the above does not prove that incidents are not counted as homicides, only if the one responsible for the death is found not guilty in a court of law. As it is structured presently, there is room to assume that, with regard to the above statement, a homicide is not considered or classified as a homicide if there are no suspects in the killing, and thus no one to actually be prosecuted or otherwise convicted for the offense.
It clearly does NOT prove your (or anyone else's) assertion that UK murders are not counted as murders unless there's a conviction. "Room to assume"? You mean, applying imaginative thinking to an ambiguous statement in a 20-year memo suffices as proof? And any reason you prefer to do this, rather than investigate how statistics are actually counted?
Matters of language are quite important. If a statement is made with enough ambiguities contained within it, it is quite easy for someone to simultaneously tell the truth, and commit acts than run contrary to the official statement. As your own statement shows, incidents are excluded on the basis of not resulting in a conviction. That does not say anything about reasons for which a conviction is not had.
No it doesn't. It says they are excluded only from one - unspecified - part of the statistics. Again, why refer to an ambiguous 20-year statement?! Why not investigate how homicide statistics are actually counted?
In the united states the methodology used to determine if an act is considered a homicides involves a dead body, and signs of foul play. If it is a justified killing, it is classified as such, but is still counted as a homicide. In the united kingdom the methodology used to determine if an act is considered a homicide, is if there is a conviction for the act. Meaning a homicide is only counted as a homicide if there is a suspect who can be put on trial, and actually convicted of a crime. If there is no suspect in the case, even if someone was murdered, it is not classified as a homicide.
What does it say of yourself, that you have not presented such statistical analysis methods for consideration by yourself? If the answer is possessed by yourself, why are you not making it accessible?
You persist in stating - without any evidence from actual crime statistics - that UK murders aren’t counted unless there is a conviction. What does it say of you that you’re not prepared to provide (nor - apparently - even look for) evidence in the actual statistics that supports your contention? Why is that? If your contention had any merit, you’d have this evidence to hand. If not, UK murder statistics - in-depth or otherwise - are readily available and “accessible” to anyone who cares to read them, and see how murders are actually counted. Odd that you don’t care to do this, and establish - if only after the fact, and if only for your own satisfaction - the validity (or otherwise) of your own opinion. Or in other, words hold yourself to the same evidentiary standard you expect of others.
And pray tell, where might these true statistics, and the way in which they are counted, be found? The office for national statistics? https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...hapter2homicide#offences-recorded-as-homicide Where does such prove that homicides are not being counted as homicides unless there is a conviction for the death?
