Nice clipping. Are you still supporting your claim that "There is *no* *such* *thing* as a non-physical-assault Robbery!"? A robbery is extortion, a mental and emotional assault, but it is the THREAT of physical assault not an actual physical assault. You absolutely are equating a physical assault with something other than a physical assault, namely a mere threat. Good luck with that claim.
>
>> Most reasonable people will not equate the two but for some
>> reason Jordan does ...
>
> We keep coming back to this, and you keep getting it wrong.
>
> They are not "equal" in any way except that they are both violent crimes.
>
> Yes! They are different! Congrats! But that's not what you're
> saying; you're saying that without physical assault, it's not
> violent. That's what I disagree with. You were originally saying
> this about Robbery, but now you're also saying it about simple assault?
>
>> I'm not saying robbery isn't a crime ...
>
> ... but you are saying that robbery isn't a violent crime sometimes,
> right?
>
> I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that's how I read this:
>
>>> Robbery is the #1 violent offense (~30% of total violent
>>> crime) in spite of the fact that the majority of robberies
>>> involve no physical assault to anyone.
>
> "John Thornton believes that Robbery, in the majority,
> is miscategorized as violent crime."
>
> Yes? This is what you say? Well: balderdash.
No, I'm saying robbery shouldn't be lumped with crimes that involve an actual physical assault. The "violent crimes" category is crap. There should be one category for robberies and one category for murder/rape/assault. You on your own jumped to the conclusion that I meant robberies were not violent. A category that lumps a scared fool robbing a convenience store with a man who kills and eats someone is totally worthless as a category since the crimes are so completely different. Putting them in the same category means you are equating them to no small degree as is evident when Doug says "look 53% are violent criminals". He is in essence we as a society have to fear and incarcerate the person who kills someone and eats them as much as we do the man who robs a convenience store with an unloaded gun in his pocket. Intentionally or not putting them all in the category violent crimes serves this purpose. The category "violent crimes" is equating the person who threatens to punch you in the face with the person who actually punches people in the face. This is stupid and wrong because as I already wrote, anyone can threaten anyone quite easily but it takes a different type of person to act on that threat. Is this clear enough?
John Thornton