The politics of hoodie wearing

Britain has a higher crime rate than any other rich nation except Australia, according to a survey yesterday. The chances of having your car stolen are greater in England and Wales than anywhere else in the developed world, it said.
The international crime report was published as Tony Blair prepared to unveil plans to tackle persistent offenders. The Prime Minister - who will next week become the first serving premier to visit a British prison when he launches his law-and-order package - said the crackdown would target the 100,000 worst offenders who are responsible for the bulk of crimes.
He is to announce a £700million programme - described by senior government sources as 'very radical' - in a bid to win back the initiative in the law and order debate in the runup to the general election expected in May.

According to the figures released yesterday, 3.6 per cent of the population of England and Wales were victims of violent crime in 1999 - second only to Australia, where the figure was 4.1 per cent. Scotland had a slightly lower rate of violence, at 3.4 per cent.

In the U.S., only 2 per cent of the population suffered an assault or robbery. One in 40 people in England and Wales had their cars stolen in 1999, the highest rate in the 17 developed countries examined. Just one in 200 Americans suffered a car theft while in Japan there was only one per 1,000 of the population.
The study looked at crime rates in 12 western European countries plus Poland, Canada, the U.S., Australia and Japan. The chances of becoming a victim of any crime in England and Wales were second only to Australia. Here, 26 per cent suffered from crime against an average across all the countries of just 21 per cent.
England and Wales are among the countries 'most pressured by crime', the report concludes. The two countries had the equal highest number of crimes per head of population of all 17 states.
There were 58 incidents for every 100 inhabitants in England and Wales - the same as Australia. The study said the size of the sample meant first place in many categories came down to statistical accident, suggesting that for many areas of crime Britain may actually be worst in the world.
Its authors insisted the general rankings accurately reflect the real situation.

Home Secretary Jack Straw admitted the survey painted a bleak picture for Britain. He said that after four years in power, Labour still had a mountain to climb to defeat crime. He added: 'Levels of victimisation are higher here than in most comparable countries for most categories of crime.

'So, while I pay tribute to the police, councils and communities for their hard work in reducing crime over recent years, no one should be under any illusions about the challenges ahead. 'Crime may be falling but it is still too high, and we have a great deal more to do to make Britain a safer place in which to live.' Shadow home secretary Ann Widdecombe said: 'It's no wonder the people of England and Wales have more chance of becoming victims of crime when there are over 2,500 fewer police, violent crime is soaring and 30,000 convicted prisoners have been let out before serving even half their sentences.
'Four years after the last election it is clear Labour have failed to be tough on crime as they promised they would be.' Experts said one reason Britain had higher crime rates was because it had a higher population density. More people living in cities - and more people living alone - gave greater opportunities for crimes like burglary, said Professor Michael Hough of South Bank University.
He said the apparently high crime rate in Australia could be due to a growing drug problem in Sydney, which is home to a fifth of the country's 19million population. But the latest research is a big embarrassment to Labour.

Recent statistics show that, while overall crime in Britain is falling, violence, particularly street robbery, is rising sharply. One of Labour's key election slogans during its 1997 election triumph was 'Tough on Crime, Tough on the Causes of Crime'. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-25671/Violent-crime-worse-Britain-US.html#ixzz1rFCrMwyx

I'm talking about where it is Roger - do YOU know if Trayvon broke Zimmerman's nose? Does anyone?
Or is that just another red herring being thrown around by his (Zimmerman's) defenders?

I'm afraid of guns in the hands of criminals.
I'm not any more afraid of the average unarmed American
as I am of the average unarmed Brit or Italian or Spaniard, etc.

I meant to refer to the fact that the urban centers of the US are so much more populated than the urban centers of Canada . . .

I'm afraid of guns in the hands of criminals. I'm not any more afraid of the average unarmed American as I am of the average unarmed Brit or Italian or Spaniard, etc.

And what I read was that Trayvon had no nicks, cuts or bruises
on his hands which would be consistent with punching someone hard enough to break his nose.

You know - who knows what happened?
All I know is what I heard on the tape of Zimmerman calling 911
and he went in pursuit of this young man instead of minding his own business.

The question is WHY?

This young man wasn't doing anything to hurt anyone. He shouldn't have been pulled into this altercation
at all in the first place.

He was minding his own business and not doing anything wrong.
Mr. Zimmerman accosted him- with a negative and aggressive attitude and a weapon- we know those are FACTS.

He should have been brought in, photographed and statement taken for an accurate record of what happened that night.
The opportunity for that is lost now.

As I have already posted several times,
it was alleged that he was slamming Mr. Z's head against the sidewalk,
about the time when he gave him a 1 gun salute.

If he lives there and if there have been burglaries,
and if he is actively taking measures against burglaries,
then that was very much his business. In theory, his anti-burglary
efforts were actively in defense of his own property. That IS his business.

U r incorrect. Those things happened.

It's not abuse to point out when you are wrong. It's not an insult to point out when you are wrong. I neither know nor care what might scare you. If you post bullshit, i have a perfect right to call bullshit.

Yeah - well what I do know is that psychologically it's much easier for someone to commit murder at a remove - which a gun allows- as opposed to stabbing or strangling someone.
So, it's my belief that in some situations in which murderous rage or intent is present, it dissipates because a person can't just point and shoot- they might actually have to get their hands dirty- and so they don't follow through with that initial murderous impulse.

I think guns are dangerous in the hands of any impulsive and irrational person from any country. And I think Mr. Zimmerman didn't really show the past profile of a perfectly rationally thinking and retrained individual. I think his past history showed that he liked to insert himself into the middle of problems and so a gun in his hand was not really a safe thing - I don't care if he's black, white, American, Puerto Rican, - whatever.