> I'll try to explain this more clearly.
No, no: you're perfectly clear!
> Robberies with no physical assault ...
... are the null set.
There is *no* *such* *thing* as a non-physical-assault Robbery!
The threat of violence *is* violence. QED!
> A drunk driver who killed someone and was found guilty of negligent
> homicide is not a violent criminal in my opinion.
Yes, I get it! I *do* understand that you have your own legal code!
> For you negligent homicide (drunk driver) equals "violent crime"
> equals murderer (angry man killing immigrant students)?
There you go again putting your own words into my keyboard. I do not believe that "negligent homicide equals murderer" (sic) ...
---
Ok, it's happy hour now.
/jordan