This topic by it's very nature is controversial...

[originalpckelly]

At around 10:30 P.M. MST shots were fired outside my window. There were repeated screams. It is unclear at this time as to the origin of the shots or if any people were injured.

It is at this time I would like to share some disturbing numbers about threats and death in America. This topic by it's very nature is controversial, and because of that I intend to say what I mean.

In the year 2001 16,037 people were killed by murderers. If trends should hold for the years of 2003-2005, approximately 70,000* people have died at the hands of murderers since 9/11/2001. It should be noted that few of those people were remembered by our nation, very few moments of silence have set aside, and no scholarships, at least to the very best knowledge of myself, have been issued and little media attention has been garnered.

There appears to be a great confusion in our nation and it appears we have assigned certain threats undue attention and significance. It also appears that certain politicians have exploited that fact.

There is a great threat posed by nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. These weapons of mass destruction, if in the hands of terrorists, could cause casualties which far exceed 70,000 or possibly even a million. There has been little true effort to prevent terrorists from obtaining these types of weapons. The federal, state, and local governments, should their response to the disasters of late be any indicator, are unprepared to deal with such large numbers of casualties.

It is possible that the Homeland Security Department is merely a "get safe quick scheme", and just like it's cousin the "get rich quick scheme", it costs a lot of money and does not deliver the results promised.

Many readers of this may hold this information to be true already. The question is why those people are so capable of understanding the true reality associated with what they may know, yet are not screaming at the top of their lungs to prevent it from happening. It is unclear at this time if that question may have an answer.

*Official information on this was obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. The information may be found here: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/totalstab.htm

Further reports may follow this one, that is if additional information becomes available.

[originalpckelly]

1. Further Reports

http://www.unitedjustice.com/death-statistics.html

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

[loyalsister]

2. Caution

What does "dies at the hands of "murderers" mean?" Who officially qualifies as a murderer?
Certainly there are cold blooded murders that take place, however, I think that it's possible that a number of homicides are committed for a single reason and have some history that does not justify the crime, but does explain it to some extent.
This makes me uncomfortable with the idea of painting such people with the broad brush of simply "murderers."
I recognize concerns people have, however I have been seeing the effects of what some legislators have done in MO when they have given this issue some attention.
I think it is important to be conscious of how we guard our criminal justice system when addressing these issues. Are highest ideals rest in those processes. To capitalize on it is to manipulate the lives of real people.
I really believe in the principle of justice and with knowledge of the limits of our system, I hate to see that principle polluted by politics. I only suggest caution. Roads such as the one carved below are a slippery slope.


This is an election year bill. I guarantee you it will pass with bipartisan support.

HB 1461 -- Defensive Use of Force

This bill allows the justifiable use of deadly force in several
new circumstances against persons who pose an imminent threat of
harm. The duty to retreat before using either deadly force or
mere physical force is not required as long as the person using
deadly force or physical force is not unlawfully present at the
location where the altercation occurs.

Anyone who takes actions that create a reasonable fear of
imminent harm in another person and who unlawfully enters or
remains in vehicles, ships, airplanes, churches, schools,
government offices, entertainment establishments, public
transportation, or any structure where a person lives or conducts
business may be subject to the legitimate use of deadly force.

Anyone who uses force in a lawful manner will be immune from both
civil and criminal penalties. If anyone sues a person who is
ultimately found to have acted lawfully in using defensive force,
the plaintiff and his or her attorney must pay court costs and
any expenses incurred by the defendant as a result of the
lawsuit.

http://www.house.mo.gov/bills061/bilsum/intro/sHB1461I.htm

[originalpckelly]

3. Well

I would call a person who kills another person, not in combat nor in any other line of duty nor in the defense of their own life when other measures of defense have been exhausted, a murderer. There may be extenuating circumstances when it comes to crime, but ultimately one is responsible if ones kills another person and the circumstances are not those previously mentioned. I mean really, if you have a person who has turned up dead, I consider those people to be murdered unless their is some other explanation that is more logical. We may not know who the murderer is, but they are murdered.

I think that people should exercise great restraint (as I have previously mentioned), and in fact that was the original intent of the post. I hope you will forgive me for not being clearer, hearing gun shots and screams outside one's window is quite a traumatic experience.

I was attempting to point out, that murder is a constant threat in America. We have not launched any war on murder since 9/11, nor spent billions of dollars more nor thrown away the rights of the accused for murders and since they kill more people, terrorists should be behind them on the lists of concerns. Yes, there are terrorism threats, but the really dangerous haven't been focused on, just ones without the use of weapons of mass destruction. There is to my knowledge only one person held as an enemy combatant who was accused of attempting to use weapons of mass destruction: Jose Padilla. He was not even charged with that crime when indicted. Everyone else in GITMO is accused of a conspiracy to kill with non-mass destruction methods. Some aren't even accused of conspiracy to kill, such is the case of one Salim Hamdan.

Another point I was trying to make, is that it is more likely to die because of murder than to die of terrorism. The well known numbers (dead on 9/11) and the numbers I have published definitely suggest that.

I can understand that people kill in our nation because they are in difficult circumstances. I, however, have lived in extremely difficult circumstances and I did not go out and rob someone and kill them. I think that to excuse the murder of another person, is quite inexcusable.

I am not saying we should throw away trials, I was trying to say we need trials.

[loyalsister]

4. Maybe I wasn't clear

I recognize your fear. I never suggested anything about "excusing" crime. I only suggested that to call someone a murderer if they have been convicted of killing another person may be a reasonable emotional response, but there may be implications that make it an inaccurate description.
IMO, "murderer," seems imply that a person simply has the tendency to do so without a second thought. The point I was trying to make is that it is possible for people to be convicted of a crime of passion or some other such crime, in which case they would probably not be inclined to kill again. I am not sure that it would be accurate to classify that person a "murderer," but I certainly think that they should serve a prison sentence to fit their crime.
I also understand what you were saying about the contrast between murder and terrorism. I am in a state where the legislature has gone into overdrive on tough on crime bills and guns blazing self defense, so I am a little worried about the kinds of things that could happen if I scare my gun nut relatives.
Consider this question:
Paranoia over terrorism > tough on crime and more rights less responsibility for "self defense" > what are the unintended consequences?

[originalpckelly]

6. This definition:

first degree murder
n. although it varies from state to state, it is generally a killing which is deliberate and premeditated (planned, after lying in wait, by poison or as part of a scheme), in conjunction with felonies such as rape, burglary, arson, or involving multiple deaths, the killing of certain types of people (such as a child, a police officer, a prison guard, a fellow prisoner), or certain weapons, particularly a gun. The specific criteria for first degree murder, are established by statute in each state and by the U.S. Code in federal prosecutions. It is distinguished from second degree murder in which premeditation is usually absent, and from manslaughter, which lacks premeditation and suggests that at most there was intent to harm rather than to kill.

I don't mean we should increase funding for anti-crime measures. We actually are doing pretty good in this country if you look at the rates. Even though that may be true there still are going to be murders every year, and they will probably consistently kill more than terrorism. My point is that we manage to live with threat of being murdered, we don't throw the Constitution away for accused murderers (and it specifically mentions capital crimes) so we shouldn't do that because of terrorism. Actually it is an anti-fear argument more than it is a crack down on crime one. I thank you, because I never really imagined that there would be people out there who are really nuts about crime and who might take away the Constitution for murderers if they found those numbers out.

I am anti-fear. If we are going to die anyway, what good is it ruining the time we have by running around fearing things yet doing nothing about it? Thats what we have been doing. It may be possible to prevent terrorism and not destroy our rights, but we haven't been doing that. The only reason we have been hearing about terrorism is so politicians can exploit it (unfortunately including some Democrats) and get power. They haven't been protecting people. Homeland Security is a sham, it is just a "get safe quick scheme."

There is another problem. People are so put off by the way we have handled terrorism that they don't even think any forms of terrorism are threats. They have been pushed to extremism by the extreme abuses of America liberty. There really is a threat from nukes and terrorism, it is not something that is completely made up. Its significance maybe yes, but not the existence of it. It is real, just ask people who lost someone on 9/11 or people in other countries who have lost someone because of terrorism.

We have to not be afraid of terrorism while protecting ourselves from it. It is a really tall job to educate people about threats and not scare them. Being scared, to use the cliché, is "letting the terrorists win". The only real weapon they have is fear. They can kill, but they can't bring down our nation unless we aide and abet them. We have done this, because we have played right into their hand. If you honestly don't think Osama Bin Laden isn't jumping up and down in a cave somewhere your nuts. He has to be in love with the fact that one attack, one attack, has destabilized America. People may not see this yet but they will unfortunately see it someday. It was bad enough that America was so bitterly divided, but this attack exploited that and increased that division.

We have to use restraint in the war on al-Qaeda. Blind hatred is what the enemy has for our nation. Blind hatred on the part of those who lost someone on 9/11 is justified, not because I say so, but because it is the truth. You would have to be a nut to not be enraged by the death of your loved one at the hands of a terrorist. The problem is that we all have blind hatred for the enemy. That is a is a disservice to the people who need justice to be served. We must restrain ourselves, not for the terrorists, but so we don't soil the names of those who died. We must not commit crime in the practice of getting justice for it. We need to realize that even though most Americans are not justified in their feeling of blind hatred, that that hatred can still be unleashed. People are funny that way. This again has been exploited by politicians, but I would lay this mainly at the feet of Republicans. There are soldiers who are accused of not being entirely restrained at GITMO and that is putting it mildly, but people don't just torture other people for no reason, unless they are completely nuts. Those soldiers would have thought twice about torturing people if they hadn't hated the enemy so much. You see, we have committed a crime in the process of getting justice for one. Justice may be blind, but not because of hatred. We must remember this. We must strong for those who lost loved ones and not let hatred form our judgments.

We still need to keep the threats of terrorism in perspective. Terrorism hasn't killed more than murder. There are some threats that could, but we may or may not be able to protect against those.

We have compromised what believe in because of hatred and fear. We as a whole, are moral cowards. We have compromised on the true battlefield of the true war: principles, hearts and minds. We could win the war on the physical battlefield in only minute; line up all of al-Qaeda and they would be obliterated. We can win of the physical battlefield every time, but still loose this war.

I believe in our principles, I know that when people understand the fact they were discovered in a time when people faced almost certain annihilation (during the early days of the Revolutionary War) they too will have confidence in those principles under a threat of possible annihilation for some, but not for the whole country and government.

I hope people listen to this now, because if they don't, one day they will read the title to a history book "The Decline and Fall of the American Empire."

[Strong Atheist]

5. Welcome to D.U.!

:toast:

[originalpckelly]

7. Thanks

[originalpckelly]

8. For further reference:

This is the other topic I posted on the current situation of our nation:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x758263

This is the racial and gender statistics of the Texas death row, just to add some interesting and saddening information to the debate:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/racial.htm

Here is the census quickfacts on Texas; compare this to the previous numbers:
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48000.html