I'm only lumping them together to subtract them from the total to prove that "3/4 of homicides were committed by acquaintances, neighbors, family members, intimate partners" is wildly wrong and misleading.
> The number comes from leaving out unknown becaue they
> are unknown.
Are you trying to say that what you really meant was that "3/4 of the homicides WHERE THE RELATIONSHIP IS KNOWN ... blah blah blah" ...? Because if you are, then I got three things:
1) Yes, that's true 2) But it's a very small part of the total! 3) You've done a terrible job trying to make that point :-)
> If they knew for sure they were strangers, they'd say so.
And they do! My list included like 2000 of them.
> But you can't know whether they are strangers or not.
But you know with high certainty that unknowns are not family/friends. I made this point earlier: when it is family/friends who commit murder, it most often gets cleared. And then you know. Because it's cleared, and it's not unknown. Murdering someone in your family or close circle of friends and getting away with is pretty dogone rare.
> It simply doesn't follow that, be/c it's unknown, it must
> be a, as you said, drug-related murder!
To be fair, I did list the other categories. But yes: it's believed (but not reported in the UCR as such, for all the obvious reasons) that most of the "unknowns" are a) drugs; b) gangs; c) NOT FAMILY AND FRIENDS.
Sheesh.
/jordan