Do cops have something against dogs?

[RGrannus]

In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come
across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't
attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that
mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first
thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato
noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems
like an epidemic.

https://sites.google.com/site/thepolicedomoreharmthangood/#PolHarBeatInn
https://sites.google.com/site/thepolicedomoreharmthangood/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/01/15/police-shoot-mans-dog-three-times-after-going-to-his-house-by-mistake-they-killed-my-dog-for-no-reason/
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20121207/uptown/angry-residents-seek-answers-from-cops-puppy-shooting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tx68uvOqug
http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-police-shoot-puppy-then-give-owner-a-ticket
http://www.examiner.com/article/chicago-police-shoot-puppy-then-give-owner-a-ticket

[Jo Wolf]

A friend of mine has been an Animal Control Officer for some years....
and is now in management in that field. She says it's a Constant fight
to keep the cops from shooting anything they think might be a "pit", so
the ACOs break their necks to get to the site before something stupid
happens..... The ACOs rarely need the capture noose, and just as rarely
need help getting the dog into their truck....

Policy in the three counties in two states that abutt to make the major
portion of Augusta, GA, and it's suburbs seems to be "Call for ACOs
before you start slamming doors open."

Part of the problem is that fewer and fewer people grow up with dogs,
live with dogs.... including cops. And they have no clue about how to
"read" basic canine behavior.... including happy tails and silly grins.
And they have no concept of what the different breeds look like....
except for those few breeds that Really look alike and only come in one
color or color combination.

Jo Wolf
Martinez, Georgia, USA

[Mike F.]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800, RGrannus wrote:

> In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come
> across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't
> attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that
> mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first
> thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato
> noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems
> like an epidemic.
>

Dogs suck.

[Moses]

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus <rgra...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come
> across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't
> attacking them or doing anything dangerous. When they broke into that
> mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first
> thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs. That author from Cato
> noticed the same thing. Just a little research turned up what seems
> like an epidemic.

If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same
thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get
killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have.

<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/domestic-cats-kill-billions-mice-birds-annually-study_n_2575833.html>

[Bill Graham]

These are feral cats, and not really, "domestic cats". The proper way to get
rid of the ferals is to capture, neuter, and release them. there are
organizations that do this, and you can donate money to them. What I do is
feed them, catch them, take them to the vet and neuter them, (and give them
their shots) and keep them as pets. Right now, I have 5 of them. My five
cats can leave at any time throiugh three cat doors I have in the outside
house doors, but they never go off the property, and never kill any birds or
even mice and voles. They are too well fed for that.

[buglady]

On 2/17/2013 4:26 PM, Moses wrote:
Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get
> killed.

............How strange! I feel the same about you!

Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have.
>
> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/domestic-cats-kill-billions-mice-birds-annually-study_n_2575833.html>

............Flawed research. And a bias as wide as an interstate
highway. http://www.voxfelina.com/2013/02/garbage-in-garbage-out/

buglady
take out the dog before replying

[Bill Graham]

In general, liberals (in my experience) always assume that they are right,
and want a law written to force everyone to do what they like to do. "If I
don't like cats, well then, nobody should like cats, and by God, we should
make a law that says all cats are outlawed!" For some ungodly reason, they
want everyone in the society to be exactly like they are and do the same
things they do 100% of the time. Their idea of a, "perfect society" is an
ant colony, where everyone is exactly like everyone else.

[Observer]

On Feb 17, 5:53 pm, "Bill Graham" <w...@comcast.net> wrote:
> buglady wrote:
> > On 2/17/2013 4:26 PM, Moses wrote:
> >  Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get
> >> killed.
>
> > ............How strange! I feel the same about you!
>
> >  Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have.
>

> >> <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/domestic-cats-kill-billions-...>

>
> > ............Flawed research.  And a bias as wide as an interstate

> > highway.http://www.voxfelina.com/2013/02/garbage-in-garbage-out/

>
> > buglady
> > take out the dog before replying
>
> In general, liberals (in my experience) always assume that they are right,
> and want a law written to force everyone to do what they like to do. "If I
> don't like cats, well then, nobody should like cats, and by God, we should
> make a law that says all cats are outlawed!" For some ungodly reason, they
> want everyone in the society to be exactly like they are and do the same
> things they do 100% of the time. Their idea of a, "perfect society" is an

> ant colony, where everyone is exactly like everyone else.- Hide quoted text -

You got that perfectly right. Liberals don't care about guns, so why
should anyone? But conservatives have the same attitude, or they'd
favor legalizing victimless "crimes" like drugs and prostitution. The
plain fact is that politicians are phony, worthless assholes. Same for
cops. We'd be better off with the country run by cats and dogs.

[Observer]

On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus <rgran...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come
> > across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't
> > attacking them or doing anything dangerous.  When they broke into that
> > mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first
> > thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs.  That author from Cato
> > noticed the same thing.  Just a little research turned up what seems
> > like an epidemic.
>
> If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same
> thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get
> killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have.

We're all threatened more by cops. They should be killed or locked up;
they do more harm than good anyway.
ThePoliceDoMoreHarmThanGood
https://sites.google.com/site/thepolicedomoreharmthangood/
As to why they shoot so many dogs, it's the same reason they shoot or
harass so many people. As someone put it, they have the mentality of
adolescent bullies; they like to dominate or kill.

[Observer]

On Feb 17, 4:26 pm, Moses <Moses.of.the.bibl...@gmail.com-DESPAM>
wrote:

> On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:49:21 -0800 (PST), RGrannus <rgran...@gmail.com>

> wrote:
>
> > In researching material about crime and the war on drugs, I've come
> > across scores of reports of cops shooting family pets who weren't
> > attacking them or doing anything dangerous.  When they broke into that
> > mayor's house mistakenly thinking it was a drug drop-off, the first
> > thing they did was shoot and kill his two dogs.  That author from Cato
> > noticed the same thing.  Just a little research turned up what seems
> > like an epidemic.
>
> If a cop feels threatened by a dog they can kill it. You can do the same
> thing. Don't worry there are plenty of fidos to replace the ones that get
> killed. Now if we only could do something about the cat problem we have.

If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops
kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it,
they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate
people and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of
government. That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only
about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the
crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a family member
has been the victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times.
The police solved none of them.

[buglady]

On 2/17/2013 5:53 PM, Bill Graham wrote:

> In general, liberals (in my experience) always assume that they are
> right, and want a law written to force everyone to do what they like to
> do.

...........How odd! I think the same of the far right!

[Mike F.]

The left are the ones who always try to force their beliefs on the rest
of society.

[sighthounds & siberians]

Riiiiight. Conservatives would never think of doing that. This
stupid thread is indicative of why this country is in the shape it's
in today. We'll never get anywhere as long as we're so polarized and
no one remembers what the words "cooperate" and "compromise" mean.

[deadrat]

Yeah, always. Like abortion. And prayer in schools.

Miserable liberals.

[Greegor]

Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give
people the false impression that Crime Scene Investigators
and Medical Examiners always get the right perp?

While it might be useful to propagandize like this,
to convince people how easily law enforcement catch
every criminal, isn't this deception a perversion of
democracy?

Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being
psychological operations against US citizens?

[Mike F.]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:15:51 -0800, Greegor wrote:

>> If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops
>> kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they
>> have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people
>> and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government.
>> That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of
>> crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in
>> those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the
>> victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police
>> solved none of them.
>
> Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false
> impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always
> get the right perp?
>

Because the viewers want to see the bad guy lose.

> While it might be useful to propagandize like this,
> to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal,
> isn't this deception a perversion of democracy?
>

No.

> Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations
> against US citizens?

No.

[Bill Graham]

I agree. I cal myself a conservative, but I am really a libertarian, which
is to say, fiscal conservative, but socially liberal. I like to say that
every woman should have the right to an abortion, but she shoulden't expect
the taxpayers to pay for it.....

[Bill Graham]

Cops are a hell of a lot more dangerous than cats. My cats dont carry
guns... Anything that makes a loud noise is disturbing to them......

[Bill Graham]

How about the liberal law that forces me to wear a helmet when I ride my
motorcycle? They are safer if I don;t wear one, but they use their insurance
rates to justify this, and other, "padded cell" laws. What the hell business
is it of theirs whether I wear a helmet or not? If that isn;t interference
with my choice of life style, then what is? And that is a uniquely liberal
law. In my experience its the liberals who insist that they interfere with
my living choices and try to make laws telling me what to do. They are the
antithesis of libertarianism, which is my natural philosophy.

[Bill Graham]

What amazes me is how many people are doing life in prison when there was no
forensic evidence at all that they committed the crime they are doing it
for. They just happened to be the only ones the police had who had a motif,
and the jury decided that that was enough to satisfy their "reasonable
doubt" criteria. "If you stood to gain something, then you must be guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt," is their motus operendi. Just the other night,
on the TV was the story of some poor Army slob who was tried 4 times in
civilian court for a murder, and the judge declared a mistrail all four
times, and then the Army tried him and he is today doing life without the
possibility of parole in Leaverworth. So much for "double jepardy".......
Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I think
I'll throw up and go to any other country.....

[Bill Graham]

Mike F. wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:15:51 -0800, Greegor wrote:
>
>>> If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops
>>> kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it,
>>> they have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to
>>> dominate people and show how tough they are. They're the same as
>>> most of government. That post shows how they do more harm than
>>> good. Only about 2% of crimes are solved, and the police had no
>>> effect on the crime rate in those studies by criminologists. I or a
>>> family member has been the victim of a serious crime at least half
>>> a dozen times. The police solved none of them.
>>
>> Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false
>> impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners
>> always get the right perp?
>>
>
> Because the viewers want to see the bad guy lose.

Well, somebody "loses". the problem is, it may not always be the "bad guy".
But what the hell, it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as they put
somebody in prison.

[deadrat]

In your case, they should make an exception, since you've shown that
nothing can penetrate your skull.

[Mike F.]

Name the TV show where the the good guy loses.

> But what the hell, it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as they
> put somebody in prison.

What TV shows are you watching, Bill?

[Mike F.]

If each trial ended in a mistrial, double jeopardy does not apply.

> Makes me really want to join up and go to
> Afghanistan..... Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other
> country.....

Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are
mostly socialist. You should fit in well.

[Bill Graham]

"Mike F." <human...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2013.02...@humanzee.edu...

How about, "forensic files"?

[Bill Graham]

"Mike F." <human...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2013.02...@humanzee.edu...

Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist? I am about as libertarian
as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx...

[Mike F.]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:18:06 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

>>>>> Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false
>>>>> impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners
>>>>> always get the right perp?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Because the viewers want to see the bad guy lose.
>>>
>>> Well, somebody "loses". the problem is, it may not always be the "bad
>>> guy".
>>
>> Name the TV show where the the good guy loses.
>>
>>> But what the hell, it doesn't really matter, does it? As long as they
>>> put somebody in prison.
>>
>> What TV shows are you watching, Bill?
>
> How about, "forensic files"?

That's not one of the fictional shows originally referenced.

[Mike F.]

On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:

>>> Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan..... Instead, I
>>> think I'll throw up and go to any other country.....
>>
>> Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are
>> mostly socialist. You should fit in well.
>
> Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist?

Your posts.

>I am about as
> libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl Marx...

You play the part of a libertarian on usenet.

[jigo]

Several studies have found that 15% to 25% of those convicted of a
crime are innocent. With new methods like DNA testing, it was
possible to determine guilt or innocence definitely in many cases.
So many innocent people are convicted probably because the police
and prosecutors want to make themselves look good by showing they
solved the case. Below are quotations from reports of the studies.

Estimating the Accuracy of Jury Verdicts”, Journal of Empirical
Legal Studies 4, 305-329, 2007.
http://www.firstscience.com/home/news/breaking-news-all-topics/new-study-shows-how-often-juries-get-it-wrong_33119.html

US juries get verdict wrong in one of six cases: study

So much for US justice: juries get the verdict wrong in one out of
six criminal cases and judges don't do much better, a new study has
found.
And when they make those mistakes, both judges and juries are far
more likely to send an innocent person to jail than to let a guilty
person go free, according to an upcoming study out of Northwestern
University.
"Those are really shocking numbers," said Jack Heinz, a law
professor at Northwestern who reviewed the research of his colleague
Bruce Spencer, a professor in the statistics department.
Recent high-profile exonerations of scores of death row inmates have
undermined faith in the infallibility of the justice system, Heinz
said.
But these cases were considered relative rarities given how many
checks and balances - like rules on the admissibility of evidence,
the presumption of innocence and the appeals process - are built
into the system.
"We assume as lawyers that the system has been created in such a way
to minimize the chance we'll convict the innocent," he said in an
interview.
"The standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable
doubt - it's supposed to be a high one. But judging by Bruce's data
the problem is substantial."
The study, which looked at 290 non-capital criminal cases in four
major cities from 2000 to 2001, is the first to examine the accuracy
of modern juries and judges in the United States.
It found that judges were mistaken in their verdicts in 12 percent
of the cases while juries were wrong 17 percent of the time.
More troubling was that juries sent 25 percent of innocent people to
jail while the innocent had a 37 percent chance of being wrongfully
convicted by a judge.
The good news was that the guilty did not have a great chance of
getting off. There was only a 10 percent chance that a jury would
let a guilty person free while the judge wrongfully acquitted a
defendant in 13 percent of the cases.
But that could have been because so many of the cases ended in a
conviction: juries convicted 70 percent of the time while the judges
said they would have found the defendant guilty in 82 percent of the
cases.
The study did not look at enough cases to prove that these numbers
are true across the country, Spencer cautioned.
But it has provided insight into how severe the problem could be,
and has also shown that measuring the problem is possible.
"People have to have some faith in the court system. We have to know
how well our systems are working," Spencer said in his suburban
Chicago office.
"We know there are errors because someone confesses after the fact
or there's DNA evidence," he said.
"What's the optimal tradeoff given that juries ultimately will make
mistakes? ... Are those balances something society is okay with?"
Spencer's study does not examine why the mistakes were made or which
cases ought to be overturned.
Instead, he determined the probability that a mistake was made by
looking at how often judges disagreed with the jury's verdict.
"If they disagree they can't both be right," he explained.
Spencer found an agreement rate of just 77 percent, which means a
lot of mistakes were being made.
Spencer hopes to find funding for a much larger study whose results
could be representative of the overall system.
Finding a solution will be much harder to do than quantifying the
problem, Heinz warned.
"The sources of the errors are quite resilient to correction," he said.
"They have to do with all sorts of biases and the strong presumption
of guilt when someone is arrested and brought to trial."
The study will be published in the July edition of the Journal of
Empirical Legal Studies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Innocence Project

http://www.law.washington.edu/ipnw/

Actual Innocence by Dwyer, Scheck, Neufeld, New York: Doubleday, 2000.

Dorothy Rabinowitz's book and articles of people falsely convicted:

http://www.injusticebusters.com/2003/Rabinowitz_interview.htm

No Crueler Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors
of Our Times

by Dorothy Rabinowitz, Wall Street Journal book, Free Press, NY, NY,
2003

"Wall Street Journal editorialist Rabinowitz has collected her
stories on false accusations of sex crimes into one harrowing
account of failed justice. ...The Amiraults, a woman and her two
grown children ran a successful preschool in Malden, Mass., and were
all sent to jail on charges of child sex abuse. No scientific or
physical evidence linked them to the crimes; rather, the courts
relied on the testimony of children who appeared on the stand after
lengthy coaching sessions in which counselors had used anatomically
correct dolls and leading questions to encourage them to accuse
their teachers. At times the author's careful documentation begs for
interpretation. Why, for instance, did the public buy the
increasingly bizarre accusations of teachers tying naked children to
trees in the schoolyard, or of anal penetration with knives that
left no physical mark? Rabinowitz leaves such speculation to others.
But she presents her cases expertly-so well that her stories helped
reverse the convictions of five people, which in turn helped her win
the 2001 Pulitzer Prize for commentary"
http://books.google.com/books/about/No_Crueler_Tyrannies.html?id=QfH4E_WHBzIC
Many more cases like this are documented in No Crueler Tyrannies

Rabinowitz wrote exposés of the dubious sexual abuse charges filed
against the operators of day care centers and other individuals,
notably that of a family named Amirault in Malden, Massachusetts[8]
and those in Wenatchee, Washington.[9] These exposés earned her a
1996 Pulitzer nomination,[6] formed half of the articles cited for
her 2001 Pulitzer win,[5] and was the basis of her book No Crueler
Tyrannies: Accusation, False Witness, and Other Terrors of Our
Times.[10]

Rabinowitz told C-SPAN that her work on these cases began with the
Wee Care Nursery School case:

I was working as a television commentator. I was at WWOR-TV in New
Jersey, doing three times a week some sort of media criticism. And
... I saw this woman in her 20s ... accused of something like 2,800
charges of child sex abuse. Oh, I thought, well, that's very odd.
... I thought, How can one woman, one young, lone woman in an
absolutely open place like the child care center of the church in
New Jersey that she worked for -- how could she have committed these
enormous crimes against 20 children, dressed and undressed them and
sent -- you know what it is to dress and undress even one child
every day without getting their socks lost? -- 20 children in a
perfectly public place, torture them for two years, frighten and
terrorize them, and they never went home and told their parents
anything? ... This did seem strange.[11]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Rabinowitz

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2007/06/juries.html
June 26 | Research
MEDIA CONTACT: Pat Vaughan Tremmel at 847-491-4892 or
p-tr...@northwestern.edu
New Study Shows How Often Juries Get It Wrong
EVANSTON, Ill. --- Juries across the country make decisions every
day on the fate of defendants, ideally leading to prison sentences
that fit the crime for the guilty and release for the innocent. Yet
a new Northwestern University study shows that juries in criminal
cases many times are getting it wrong.
In a set of 271 cases from four areas, juries gave wrong verdicts in
at least one out of eight cases, according to “Estimating the
Accuracy of Jury Verdicts,” a paper by a Northwestern University
statistician that is being published in the July issue of Journal of
Empirical Legal Studies.
“Contrary to popular belief, this study strongly suggests that DNA
or other after-the-fact evidence is not the only way to know how
often jury verdicts are correct,” said Bruce Spencer, the study's
author, professor of statistics and faculty fellow at the Institute
for Policy Research at Northwestern. “Based on findings from a
limited sample, I am optimistic that larger, carefully designed
statistical studies would have much to tell us about the accuracy of
jury verdicts.”
Spencer cautions that the numerical findings should not be
generalized to broader sets of cases, for which additional study
would be needed, but the study strongly suggests that jury verdicts
can be studied statistically. If such studies were conducted on a
large scale, they might lead to better understanding of the
prevalence of incorrect verdicts -- false convictions and false
acquittals, he said.
To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of
jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions
of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other
words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its
judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to
be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is
estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer
said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury
verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and
across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's
statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative
accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of
cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was
conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent
for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement
rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two
people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they
matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50
percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions
were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of
social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is
that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be
correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100
percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury,
or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the
judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy
by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.
With the assumption of the Spencer analysis that judges are at least
as accurate as jurors after completion of all testimony, we can get
an estimate of jury accuracy that is likely to be higher than the
actual accuracy. Thus, the 77 percent agreement rate means that
juries are accurate up to 87 percent of the time or less, or reach
an incorrect verdict in at least one out of eight cases.
“Some of the errors are incorrect acquittals, where the defendant
goes free, and some are incorrect convictions,” Spencer said. “As a
society can we be satisfied if 10 percent of convictions are
incorrect? Can we be satisfied knowing that innocent people go to
jail for many years for wrongful convictions?”
Spencer envisions that statistical studies would complement
nationwide efforts to expose wrongful convictions, including the
work of the Center on Wrongful Convictions at Northwestern
University School of Law. The center's work in exposing flaws in
Illinois' capital punishment system played a significant role in
former Gov. George Ryan's decision to commute Illinois death row
inmates' pending executions to sentences of life in prison.
The NCSC study is not representative of a larger set of cases,
Spencer stressed. He hopes that nationally representative studies
will be carried out in the future.
Using additional assumptions and statistical models, the extent of
wrongful convictions and wrongful acquittals also can be estimated,
according to Spencer. The methods also could be extended to estimate
accuracy of verdicts in non-jury trials.
While the studies on verdict accuracy will not tell whether the
verdict for a particular case was correct or not, they will help
assess what proportion of verdicts are correct.
“If you were on trial and not guilty, you certainly would want the
jury to do the right thing,” Spencer said. “Now, subject to these
assumptions, studies could be employed to give us an idea of how
often that happens.”
A technical report is available at
http://www.northwestern.edu/ipr/publications/papers/2006/wp0605.pdf.

To conduct the study, Spencer employed a replication analysis of
jury verdicts, comparing decisions of actual jurors with decisions
of judges who were hearing the cases they were deciding. In other
words, as a jury was deliberating about a particular verdict, its
judge filled out a questionnaire giving what he or she believed to
be the correct verdict.
“Consider the analogy to sample surveys, where sampling error is
estimated even though the true value may never be known,” Spencer
said. “The key is replication. To assess the accuracy of jury
verdicts, we need a second opinion of what the verdict should be.”
By comparing agreement rates of judges and juries over time and
across jurisdictions, and even across types of cases, Spencer's
statistical analysis could give insights into the comparative
accuracy of verdicts in different sets of cases.
For his analysis, Spencer utilized a study with a special set of
cases that was recently conducted in the United States by the
National Center for State Courts (NCSC). An earlier study was
conducted by Kalven and Zeisel in the 1950s.
The agreement rate was 77 percent in the NCSC study and 80 percent
for the earlier study. Allowing for chance agreement, the agreement
rates were not high. (With chance agreement, for example, if two
people tossed coins heads or tails independently to see if they
matched, one would expect agreement, heads-heads or tails-tails, 50
percent of the time.)
To obtain a numerical estimate of jury accuracy, some assumptions
were made, as is the case for virtually any statistical analysis of
social groups or programs. A key assumption of Spencer's study is
that, on average, the judge's verdict is at least as likely to be
correct as the jury's verdict.
Without assumptions, a 77 percent agreement rate could reflect 100
percent accuracy by the judge and 77 percent accuracy by the jury,
or 100 percent accuracy by the jury and 77 percent accuracy by the
judge, or 88 percent accuracy by both, or even 50 percent accuracy
by both if they often agreed on the incorrect verdict.

[Bill Graham]

Who said it was fictional? I don't generally watch fiction. TV fiction is
generally atrocious.

[deadrat]

Doesn't stop you from posting fiction here and claiming it's fact.

Go figure.

[Bill Graham]

I don't, "play". Everything I post is my real opinion, and I never lie. If I
say it happened to me, it really did hoppen to me at some time in the past.
Why would I bother to post here at all if I didn;t believe what I post? I
have better things to do with my time. What did I say that would lead you to
believe that I am a, "liberal socialist"? Obama is a liberal socialist. I
have voted against him twice now. Unfortunately, I live in a socialist
state, so my votes are useless. Most of my neighbors are socialists. They
have bought into the lie that the government can take care of you better
than you can take care of yourself. Even as have most of the posters on this
forum have. They think they can have freedom and be taken care of by their
government too. This is known as, "Having your cake and eating it".

[deadrat]

On 2/19/13 8:17 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> Mike F. wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:
>>
>>>>> Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan.....
>>>>> Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country.....
>>>>
>>>> Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries are
>>>> mostly socialist. You should fit in well.
>>>
>>> Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist?
>>
>> Your posts.
>>
>>> I am about as
>>> libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl
>>> Marx...
>>
>> You play the part of a libertarian on usenet.
>
> I don't, "play". Everything I post is my real opinion, and I never lie.

Not even that lie about the realtor you supposedly knew?

> If I say it happened to me, it really did hoppen to me at some time in
> the past.

Except for the stuff you stole off the internet and tried to pass off as
first-person narrative.

> Why would I bother to post here at all if I didn;t believe
> what I post?

So it's better to be ignorant and gullible than just ignorant?

> I have better things to do with my time.

Now that you don't have to cash your welfare^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Social
Security checks thanks to direct deposit, I don't believe that for a minute.

> What did I say
> that would lead you to believe that I am a, "liberal socialist"?

Your incessant sucking at the public teat?

> Obama
> is a liberal socialist. I have voted against him twice now.
> Unfortunately, I live in a socialist state, so my votes are useless.
> Most of my neighbors are socialists. They have bought into the lie that
> the government can take care of you better than you can take care of
> yourself.

No, they've bought into the truth that the government can take better
care of *you* than you can yourself. Lucky for you, eh?

> Even as have most of the posters on this forum have. They
> think they can have freedom and be taken care of by their government
> too. This is known as, "Having your cake and eating it".

That probably explains your indigestion.

[jigo]

deadrat wrote:
> On 2/19/13 8:17 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>> Mike F. wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:19:45 -0800, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Makes me really want to join up and go to Afghanistan.....
>>>>>> Instead, I think I'll throw up and go to any other country.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you like help packing? I understand Scandinavia countries
>>>>> are
>>>>> mostly socialist. You should fit in well.
>>>>
>>>> Where did you get the idea that I am a socialist?
>>>
>>> Your posts.
>>>
>>>> I am about as
>>>> libertarian as you can get. I make John Stossel look like Karl
>>>> Marx...
>>>
>>> You play the part of a libertarian on usenet.
>>
>> I don't, "play". Everything I post is my real opinion, and I never
>> lie.

Your accusation seems rather bizarre; why would a socialist post
pro-libertarian material?

I remember that "love it or leave it" BS from the Vietnam days.
Aside from its other fallacies, why should people who oppose
oppressive government policies be the ones who should leave? I
obtained my property by working and paying for it, and I don't try
to tell people what to do outside my property. The government
obtained its control of the area by seizing it with force and
massacring the native population. Look up the "Trail of Tears" for
example. Pres. Jackson ignored the Supreme Court decision and
forcibly drove the Cherokee from their land.
http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/TrailOfTears/Default.aspx

[Bill Graham]

Tha5t's true, and I would love to go back to that time and undo whqat he
did. but I wouldn;t fix it by giving them anything. I would fix it by making
them citizens and telling them that they were going to have to accept our
society and make it their own. And today, there is no way to fixit by any
other means either. You can't fix it by making me, whose great grandfather
was responiible, give something to their great grandchildren who were never
harmed because they hadn't been born yte. but I have to live in this crazy,
liberal, screwed up society, that has no logic....

[Mike F.]

Very few shows are like Forensic Files. Most are fictional.

Is the inability to understand a trait common with socialists like you?

[deadrat]

> but I have to live in this crazy, liberal, screwed up society^H^H^H^H^H^H^H
world inside my head, that has no logic....

Typo in your post. Fixed it for you.

You're welcome.

[Greegor]

> That's true, and I would love to go back to that time and undo what he

> did. but I wouldn't fix it by giving them anything. I would fix it by making
> them citizens and telling them that they were going to have to accept our
> society and make it their own. And today, there is no way to fixit by any
> other means either. You can't fix it by making me, whose great grandfather
> was responiible, give something to their great grandchildren who were never
> harmed because they hadn't been born yte. but I have to live in this crazy,
> liberal, screwed up society, that has no logic....

Canada felt so guilty they gave back the whole
huge Northwest territory to some native tribes.
It was supposed to be renamed to Nunavut.

How did they work that out for indiginous peoples
in the lower provinces, Zeppy?

[Billy]

In article <pan.2013.02...@humanzee.edu>,

Too cold. Could you help with airfare to the south of France?

--
Welcome to the New America.
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg>
or
E Pluribus Unum
Next time vote Green Party

[Billy]

In article <hKmdnYOGo5eNq7nM...@giganews.com>,

He's a corporation?
<http://thinkbynumbers.org/government-spending/corporate-welfare/corporat
e-welfare-statistics-vs-social-welfare-statistics/>

>
> > Obama
> > is a liberal socialist. I have voted against him twice now.
> > Unfortunately, I live in a socialist state, so my votes are useless.
> > Most of my neighbors are socialists. They have bought into the lie that
> > the government can take care of you better than you can take care of
> > yourself.
>
> No, they've bought into the truth that the government can take better
> care of *you* than you can yourself. Lucky for you, eh?
>
> > Even as have most of the posters on this forum have. They
> > think they can have freedom and be taken care of by their government
> > too. This is known as, "Having your cake and eating it".
>
> That probably explains your indigestion.

[Billy]

In article <zrWdnaWmWfPcZbnM...@giganews.com>,

Jackson himself enjoyed widespread support that ranged across all classes
and sections of the country. He attracted farmers, mechanics, laborers,
professionals and even businessmen. And all this without Jackson being
clearly pro- or antilabor, pro- or antibusiness, pro- or antilower,
middle or upper class. It has been demonstrated that he was a
strikebreaker [Jackson sent troops to control rebellions workers on the
Chesapeake and Ohio Canal], yet at different times ... he and the
Democrats received the backing of organized labor.

It was the new politics of ambiguity�speaking for the lower and
middle classes to get their support in times of rapid growth and
potential turmoil. The two-party system came into its own in this time.
To give people a choice between two different parties and allow them, in
a period of rebellion, to choose the slightly more democratic one was an
ingenious mode of control. Like so much in the American system, it was
not devilishly contrived by some master plotters; it developed naturally
out of the needs of the situation. Remini compares the Jacksonian
Democrat Martin Van Buren, who succeeded Jackson as President, with
the Austrian conservative statesman Metternich: "Like Metternich, who
was seeking to thwart revolutionary discontent in Europe. Van Buren
and similar politicians were attempting to banish political disorder from
the United States by a balance of power achieved through two well-
organized and active parties."

The Jacksonian idea was to achieve stability and control by winning to
the Democratic party "the middling interest, and especially . .. the sub-
stantial yeomanry of the country" by "prudent, judicious, well-considered
reform." That is, reform that would not yield too much. These were the
words of Robert Rantoul, a reformer, corporation lawyer, and
Jacksonian Democrat. It was a forecast of the successful appeal of the
Democratic party�and at times the Republican party�in the twentieth
century.

A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present
by Howard Zinn
<http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/B004
HZ6XWS/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301948477&sr=1-4>
(Available at a library near you, until it is closed.)
p. 217 -18

[Billy]

In article <pan.2013.02...@humanzee.edu>,

"Mike F." <human...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 11:15:51 -0800, Greegor wrote:
>

> >> If I feel unjustly threatened by a cop, can I kill him or her? Cops
> >> kill dogs for the same reason they kill people: As someone put it, they
> >> have the mentality of adolescent bullies. They like to dominate people
> >> and show how tough they are. They're the same as most of government.
> >> That post shows how they do more harm than good. Only about 2% of
> >> crimes are solved, and the police had no effect on the crime rate in
> >> those studies by criminologists. I or a family member has been the
> >> victim of a serious crime at least half a dozen times. The police
> >> solved none of them.
> >
> > Did you ever wonder about why so many TV shows give people the false
> > impression that Crime Scene Investigators and Medical Examiners always
> > get the right perp?
> >
>

> Because the viewers want to see the bad guy lose.
>

> > While it might be useful to propagandize like this,
> > to convince people how easily law enforcement catch every criminal,
> > isn't this deception a perversion of democracy?
> >
>

> No.

>
> > Wouldn't such a deception qualify as being psychological operations
> > against US citizens?
>

> No.

You guys see any dogs around here?

[Billy]

In article <ubudnQ38vsGNXL_M...@giganews.com>,

Sounds like the set up to the movie "The Running Man".

[Billy]

In article <cfOdnfaI26uRKb_M...@giganews.com>,

And conservatives are against Planed Parenthood, Labor Unions, food
inspection, environmental pollution, regulation of derivatives based on
dubious [re:toxic] assets, restrained use of fossil fuels, and a secular
society.

<http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/06/right-stupidity-spre
ads-enabled-polite-left?>

[Billy]

In article <pan.2013.02...@humanzee.edu>,
"Mike F." <human...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:15:52 -0500, buglady wrote:
>
> > On 2/17/2013 5:53 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
> >
> >> In general, liberals (in my experience) always assume that they are
> >> right, and want a law written to force everyone to do what they like to
> >> do.
> > ...........How odd! I think the same of the far right!
> >
> > buglady take out the dog before replying
>

> The left are the ones who always try to force their beliefs on the rest
> of society.

The Koch brothers are leftists?!! Who knew.

[Billy]

In article <11262-512...@storefull-3111.bay.webtv.net>,
jo-...@webtv.net (Jo Wolf) wrote:

> A friend of mine has been an Animal Control Officer for some years....
> and is now in management in that field. She says it's a Constant fight
> to keep the cops from shooting anything they think might be a "pit", so
> the ACOs break their necks to get to the site before something stupid
> happens..... The ACOs rarely need the capture noose, and just as rarely
> need help getting the dog into their truck....
>
> Policy in the three counties in two states that abutt to make the major
> portion of Augusta, GA, and it's suburbs seems to be "Call for ACOs
> before you start slamming doors open."
>
> Part of the problem is that fewer and fewer people grow up with dogs,
> live with dogs.... including cops. And they have no clue about how to
> "read" basic canine behavior.... including happy tails and silly grins.
> And they have no concept of what the different breeds look like....
> except for those few breeds that Really look alike and only come in one
> color or color combination.
>
> Jo Wolf
> Martinez, Georgia, USA

Thanks for bringing the thread back on topic.

[Bill Graham]

Or, "Crime and Punishment".

[Bill Graham]

Billy wrote:
> In article <pan.2013.02...@humanzee.edu>,
> "Mike F." <human...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2013 08:15:52 -0500, buglady wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/17/2013 5:53 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
>>>
>>>> In general, liberals (in my experience) always assume that they are
>>>> right, and want a law written to force everyone to do what they
>>>> like to do.
>>> ...........How odd! I think the same of the far right!
>>>
>>> buglady take out the dog before replying
>>
>> The left are the ones who always try to force their beliefs on the
>> rest of society.
>
> The Koch brothers are leftists?!! Who knew.

How about that New York mayor who wants to ban large sized cola drinks? If
that isn't typically liberal, I don't know what is. So we have to order two
drinks to get what we want? This is why I find it hard to say, "liberal"
without prefacing it with, "stupid".

[Seth]

In article <wildbilly-9C22D...@c-61-68-245-199.per.connect.net.au>,

Billy <wild...@withoutta.net> wrote:

>You guys see any dogs around here?

On the Internet, nobody knows.

Seth