Sweet, Albuquerque on the national news!

5 people killed is "sweet"?

or is my sarcarsm detector broken?
 
Bob Noel said:
5 people killed is "sweet"?

or is my sarcarsm detector broken?
Click to expand...

Your sarcasm detector is broken. This type of news isn't really "news" in Albuquerque. It happens all the time.

You can tell in the attitude of the officers being interviewed. They deal with it so often, they don't get why this one's special.

So, sweet - Albuquerque finally made the news. Anywhere else in the county would have 24/7 live coverage of a 6 person massacre. In Albuquerque? We'll put it on the sidebar of CNN.com.

Must be a slow news day.
 
SkyHog said:
Your sarcasm detector is broken. This type of news isn't really "news" in Albuquerque. It happens all the time.

You can tell in the attitude of the officers being interviewed. They deal with it so often, they don't get why this one's special.

So, sweet - Albuquerque finally made the news. Anywhere else in the county would have 24/7 live coverage of a 6 person massacre. In Albuquerque? We'll put it on the sidebar of CNN.com.

Must be a slow news day.
Click to expand...
Why should we care what happens in other countries like Mexico?? :dunno::dunno::D:D
 
SkyHog said:
This type of news isn't really "news" in Albuquerque. It happens all the time.

You can tell in the attitude of the officers being interviewed. They deal with it so often, they don't get why this one's special.

So, sweet - Albuquerque finally made the news. Anywhere else in the county would have 24/7 live coverage of a 6 person massacre. In Albuquerque? We'll put it on the sidebar of CNN.com.

Must be a slow news day.
Click to expand...

Albuquerque is the number 35 city over 250,000 population for violent crime in 2008. I'm surprised that Detroit is number 13. I always heard that it was the murder capital of the world. Las Vegas is number 7. New York is number 1 in 2008. That is interesting, because I have never felt threatened in New York. They have some pretty strict gun laws too. How does that happen? Honolulu is number 12. Who would have thought that Honolulu is so high on the list? Denver is number 29. I don't know Nick, when it comes to violent crime, there are worse places to live I guess. I'm sure this incident will bump it up a ways on the list.
 
Maxmosbey said:
Albuquerque is the number 35 city over 250,000 population for violent crime in 2008. I'm surprised that Detroit is number 13. I always heard that it was the murder capital of the world. Las Vegas is number 7. New York is number 1 in 2008. That is interesting, because I have never felt threatened in New York. They have some pretty strict gun laws too. How does that happen? Honolulu is number 12. Who would have thought that Honolulu is so high on the list? Denver is number 29. I don't know Nick, when it comes to violent crime, there are worse places to live I guess. I'm sure this incident will bump it up a ways on the list.
Click to expand...

On the radio this morning, they were saying that only 2 people were killed besides the gunman.

That's a pretty drastic change from the CNN story...
 
SkyHog said:
On the radio this morning, they were saying that only 2 people were killed besides the gunman.

That's a pretty drastic change from the CNN story...
Click to expand...

You mean CNN didn't get it right. I'm shocked I tell ya!! :D
 
SkyHog said:
On the radio this morning, they were saying that only 2 people were killed besides the gunman.

That's a pretty drastic change from the CNN story...
Click to expand...

Still, it is bad. It said in the article that it was a domestic violence crime. I wonder if he could legally possess a firearm? I always think that it is naive when people think they are safe from domestic violence because one of the parties is no longer allowed to possess a firearm. Like that stops them from committing murder.
 
Maxmosbey said:
I'm just going by this one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate

I guess it depends on how you look at it.
Click to expand...
The wiki data is jsut the raw FBI data.

But yes that the data does depend on how you look at it.

By looking at the rates in a per capital way one is able to actually ascertain their real risk.

Look at it this way. If you had to be in a room were 7 people were to be shot, would you want to be in the room with 10 people or 100 people?

Same thing here. While place like Chicago have a high murder rate, there are also 3,000,000 people there.
 
ScottM said:
Look at it this way. If you had to be in a room were 7 people were to be shot, would you want to be in the room with 10 people or 100 people?

Same thing here. While place like Chicago have a high murder rate, there are also 3,000,000 people there.
Click to expand...

But if in the room of 10 people 7 are getting shot, then 70 would get shot in the room of 100. My odds are still the same.
 
EdFred said:
But if in the room of 10 people 7 are getting shot, then 70 would get shot in the room of 100. My odds are still the same.
Click to expand...
That is only true if the shooting was specified as a percentage. I did not specify it as such. I specified it as 7 people. So in one room it is 70% and in the other 7%. See the difference?

I would rather have the .07shot/person than the .7shot/person.
 
Maxmosbey said:
Still, it is bad. It said in the article that it was a domestic violence crime. I wonder if he could legally possess a firearm? I always think that it is naive when people think they are safe from domestic violence because one of the parties is no longer allowed to possess a firearm. Like that stops them from committing murder.
Click to expand...

It's looking like it's related to a child custody dispute that was particularly nasty.

From my own observations, it certainly seems that these types of mass shootings are very frequently related to domestic/family issues.

It's somewhat surprising to know that, in terms of violence in a courtroom, it's the domestic cases that carry the highest risk. Granted, that could be due to the fact that in criminal trials there are frequently police present (which is not generally the situation in domestic cases). But, it shows the potential, I think.
 
ScottM said:
That is only true if the shooting was specified as a percentage. I did not specify it as such. I specified it as 7 people. So in one room it is 70% and in the other 7%. See the difference?

I would rather have the .07shot/person than the .7shot/person.
Click to expand...

And in the very next sentence you mentioned rate. Regardless of how many people live wherever, I want the lowest rate, not the lowest number. Heck it would only take 1 murder in Sidnaw to put them at the #1 spot.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
It's looking like it's related to a child custody dispute that was particularly nasty.

From my own observations, it certainly seems that these types of mass shootings are very frequently related to domestic/family issues.

It's somewhat surprising to know that, in terms of violence in a courtroom, it's the domestic cases that carry the highest risk. Granted, that could be due to the fact that in criminal trials there are frequently police present (which is not generally the situation in domestic cases). But, it shows the potential, I think.
Click to expand...

It not surprising to me. I am not a big fan of our domestic policies. They have gotten so extreme that they drive people to extremes. If that makes sense. I am very sensitive to stopping domestic abuse, but the way it is being addressed is not helping solve the problem. If anything, it is making things worse. That is just my opinion.
 
Maxmosbey said:
It not surprising to me. I am not a big fan of our domestic policies. They have gotten so extreme that they drive people to extremes. If that makes sense. I am very sensitive to stopping domestic abuse, but the way it is being addressed is not helping solve the problem. If anything, it is making things worse. That is just my opinion.
Click to expand...

Was actually having a discussion about that last night....

As with so many things, dealing in absolutes isn't a good answer.
 
EdFred said:
And in the very next sentence you mentioned rate. Regardless of how many people live wherever, I want the lowest rate, not the lowest number. Heck it would only take 1 murder in Sidnaw to put them at the #1 spot.
Click to expand...
Your comments were not addressed to what I said next. They were addressed to my comment about 7 people being killed, your translated that into a rate. I merely corrected your math. 7 people are 7 people no matter how many are in a room.

The rates change based on many are in the room in addition to the 7.

One person in Sidnaw is a high per capita rate. If someone went on a killing spree in Sidnaw you would have a higher chance of being one of the targets than if a person when on a killing spree in Hastings. That is just math.

As for me saying rate in the next line, that was my bad. I should have said murders and left rate off.
 
Last edited:
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Was actually having a discussion about that last night....

As with so many things, dealing in absolutes isn't a good answer.
Click to expand...


The CJS could hardly do worse than before these "absolutes" were put into place.

I too was having this discussion at work the other day, in terms of mandatory arrest laws for domestic assault. While it does take away discretion from officers, that might actually be a good thing. Wouldn't want to go back to "if I have to come back here again someone is going to jail..."

This is all separate from the civil (so to speak) side of things, of course.
 
alaskaflyer said:
The CJS could hardly do worse than before these "absolutes" were put into place.

I too was having this discussion at work the other day, in terms of mandatory arrest laws for domestic assault. While it does take away discretion from officers, that might actually be a good thing. Wouldn't want to go back to "if I have to come back here again someone is going to jail..."

This is all separate from the civil (so to speak) side of things, of course.
Click to expand...

That's the other side of it. There have been numerous instances where someone, who maybe should have been arrested in the first place, caused some serious problems.Like murder.

On top of that, I'm sure that the makers of the policy considered liability - could a lawsuit based on "you should have made an arrest or my baby wouldn't be dead" work? Even though costly, preventing just one of those lawsuits probably covers the expense for a couple of years.

The flip side is the unintended consequences, and I'm personally aware of numerous instances of them. Sometimes they're even counterproductive - to both society (restraining orders ofen make angry people angrier) or to individuals (a marriage that might have worked out doesn't).
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
The flip side is the unintended consequences, and I'm personally aware of numerous instances of them. Sometimes they're even counterproductive - to both society (restraining orders ofen make angry people angrier) or to individuals (a marriage that might have worked out doesn't).
Click to expand...

It hangs on the followup after the arrest and order of protection. The court and pretrial release and counseling services (of whatever jurisdiction we are talking about) absolutely have to follow up appropriately, otherwise the arrest only helped prevent violence for the hours someone was in custody.

I specialized in this in my career for a short period in the nineties. Never saw a case where arresting the primary problem person made things worse. Saw plenty of times where the court eventually made the whole exercise a waste of time due to **** poor interim release conditions and sentencing.

And if a marriage fails because someone was arrested...well, I would posit that folks are focusing on the effect instead of the cause.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top