re: Will Smith (NFL) shot dead in NOLA

He was not charged with attempted murder on wife because shooter only intended to kill Smith. Wife was hit by stray. Correct charge would negligent injury.

quote:

---

So NOLA residents, what are your top 2 or 3 rules of thumb for being street smart and avoiding crimes?

---

Just don't go. It's a stinky city with shut residents who feed on tourists. The police department is ineffective at patrolling the most visited places.
Yea sure, there is some nice parts and great food and architecture, but other than that, you are better of visiting and vacationing in one of a billion better cities.

Its a dump in a heavy republican state, yet it's filled and run by democrats.

quote:

---

Then why did one of the bullets fired from his gun to into her body?

---

quote:

---

Its a dump in a heavy republican state, yet it's filled and run by democrats.

---

Which major cities are ran by republicans ?

quote:

---

Which major cities are ran by republicans ?

---

Jacksonville
Miami
Oklahoma City
San Diego

quote:

---

If the prosecution were to fail to prove intent to murder her as well while charging first degree, then the prosecution could lose the case. 2nd degree is probably the safe call. Obviously more facts are needed.

---

Probably a safe bet his fingerprints are on the weapon. (no telling if the gun it's self has other bodies connected to it) you have multiple witnesses, powder residue on his hand, possible surveillance video, etc.

Dude is literally red handed. If he shot at this couple, and a bullet hit her (which it did), it doesn't make sense to say he didn't have an intent in harming.

He had no business firing a weapon into someone's vehicle, taking life, in the first place. Feels like the prosecution has a strong case no matter how it's looked at.

quote:

---

Using FBI data base says different.

---

Do you have a link to the database?

Interesting. I may have overlooked the rankings but did find this disclaimer:

quote:

---

UCR data are sometimes used to compile rankings of individual jurisdictions and institutions of higher learning. These incomplete analyses have often created misleading perceptions which adversely affect geographic entities and their residents. For this reason, the FBI has a long-standing policy against ranking participating law enforcement agencies on the basis of crime data alone. Despite repeated warnings against these practices, some data users continue to challenge and misunderstand this position.

Data users should not rank locales because there are many factors that cause the nature and type of crime to vary from place to place. UCR statistics include only jurisdictional population figures along with reported crime, clearance, or arrest data. Rankings ignore the uniqueness of each locale. Some factors that are known to affect the volume and type of crime occurring from place to place are:

• Population density and degree of urbanization.
• Variations in composition of the population, particularly youth concentration.
• Stability of the population with respect to residents’ mobility, commuting patterns, and
transient factors.
• Economic conditions, including median income, poverty level, and job availability.
Modes of transportation and highway systems.
• Cultural factors and educational, recreational, and religious characteristics.
• Family conditions with respect to divorce and family cohesiveness.
• Climate.
• Effective strength of law enforcement agencies.
• Administrative and investigative emphases on law enforcement.
• Policies of other components of the criminal justice system (i.e., prosecutorial, judicial,
correctional, and probational).
• Citizens’ attitudes toward crime.
• Crime reporting practices of the citizenry.

Ranking agencies based solely on UCR data has serious implications. For example, if a user wants to measure the effectiveness of a law enforcement agency, these measurements are not available. As a substitute, a user might list UCR clearance rates, rank them by agency, and attempt to infer the effectiveness of individual law enforcement agencies. This inference is flawed because all the other measures of police effectiveness were ignored. The nature of the offenses that were cleared must be considered as those cleared may not have been the most serious, like murder or rape. The agency’s clearances may or may not result in conviction, the ultimate goal. The agency may make many arrests for Part II offenses, like drug abuse violations, which demonstrate police activity but are not considered in the clearance rate. The agency’s available resources are also critical to successful operation, so its rate of officers to population and budget should be considered. The UCR clearance rate was simply not designed to provide a complete assessment of law enforcement effectiveness. In order to obtain a valid picture of an agency’s effectiveness, data users must consider an agency’s emphases and resources; and its crime, clearance, and arrest rates; along with other appropriate factors.

Because of concern regarding the proper use of UCR data, the FBI has the following policies:
• The FBI does not analyze, interpret, or publish crime statistics based solely on a single- dimension interagency ranking.
• The FBI does not provide agency-based crime statistics to data users in a ranked format.
• When providing/using agency-oriented statistics, the FBI cautions and, in fact, strongly discourages, data users against using rankings to evaluate locales or the effectiveness of their law enforcement agencies.

---

(no message)