FBI publishes crime report showing "0" deaths occurred in Newtown in 2012

originally posted by: Rob48
a reply to: Xcathdra

Precisely.

Why is everybody always so keen to question anything and everything EXCEPT ludicrous self-serving nutbars like Alex Jones? If you say the officials are lying, that apparently makes you immune from scrutiny yourself. Magic!

9 times out of 10, when you call an "official" or politician a liar, you are probably right.

How do you know that a politician is lying?

Their lips are moving?

originally posted by: OneManArmy

originally posted by: WhiteAlice

originally posted by: Helious
a reply to: Elton

Yep, the sources I have seen said the Aurora and Sandy Hook "tragedies" didn't quite seem to make it into the official database. Go figure.

It's because both events are what would be considered "statistical outliers" from the norm. The FBI crime data is used to measure the overall "state" of an area by many entities. The more murders in an area, the more it can affect how the town/city is represented in terms of criminal activity in general with a whole slew of effects including declining property values. Omitting those events that are outside of the norm of behavior (and mass killings are VERY outside the norm) basically paints a better picture of the actual level of crime, violent crime and murder for a given area. So it is very likely that it was omitted due to statistics.

Outlier defined

So let me get this straight....

You are telling me that they cook the stats?

Tell me something that I dont know.

Bravo on your eloquent post. It's not "cooking the stats". Removing statistical outliers actually improves the veracity and tendencies of the stats. If something happened more than once or twice, it wouldn't be an outlier. As the FBI page goes, the actually non-outlier state is the norm and really, that should be an indicator as to just how shocking the event was for that particular town.

originally posted by: butcherguy
^^^^ That was what Xcathdra posted. ^^^^^
That was what I was responding to.
If you contend that the Federal statistics are are complete and are not missing anything... take it up with Xcathdra.

Federal stats are as complete as they can be. NIBRS is the Fed system they use to track these things, and my state uses MIBRS (missouri). Each state has their own way of reporting these crime stats to the Feds. It is suppose to be a requirement but there are agencies who do not report their stats.

The issue surrounding that affect smaller agencies more. Most report writing software is geared towards the officers, which is to say in order to compile the stats someone from command staff has to manually go through and tabulate the stats the Feds want.

Larger agencies have the resources, either by manpower or technology, to tabulate the stats. Some agencies have report writing systems geared towards admin, which is to say it forces the officer to not only enter the charges, but they must be entered from highest crime to lowest with complete modifiers added. It forces the officer to tabulate the stats the moment they start filling out the forms.

The stats the FBI puts together are important as it gives an overview of crime, whats up, whats down etc.
The advantage for the agencies to actually compile correct stats and submit them is they can be used when Federal grants roll around. It becomes difficult for an agency to request DWI overtime grants from the state / feds if their stats show no DWI related incidents.

Also people need to keep in mind state law. Not all crimes will be included if they are still under investigation etc etc.

In this particular case the information about Newton is present at the state level and with the feds involvement the FBI is aware of it.

Alex Jones needs to calm down. This is as bad as his tirade about the "FEMA" camp being built at LAX. While he kept going on and on about a parking lot with barb wired fence designed to keep people in, he failed to notice they were building a consolidated car rental facility (Las Vegas has one and they are very nice).

The first rule -
If you see something that does not look right - investigate it first before claiming its something its not.

originally posted by: Xcathdra



The first rule -
If you see something that does not look right - investigate it first before claiming its something its not.

Investigations can be thwarted, derailed, denied, however if tptb feel threatened by the information revealed.
It's a matter of secrecy used to keep the status quo.

And how do you investigate when all the sources have and agenda...the msm sucks and alternative media isn't any better. SOL when it comes to the truth in any capacity eh?

a reply to: Xcathdra

Earlier this year, Lt. Col. Dave Grossman told me that he believes the biggest problem facing law enforcement today is altered crime stats. He encouraged me to write about it. What I discovered was alarming. Maybe some of you are already well aware of the matter.

Source

The stats are only as reliable as the sources that provide them.
The "doctoring" of crime stats has been an ongoing issue here in the UK also.
Stats doctored to make it look like crime is going down, when it really isnt.

a reply to: OneManArmy

Yup..

The same thing occurs with school districts that have their own police departments. In an effort for the school to show they are safe, a lot of the crime that occurs is handled outside the criminal justice system. It allows the school district to doctor its stats to show low to no crime.

Don't get me wrong.. You guys are preaching to the choir. I dont like the way stats are compiled. It makes it way to easy to doctor them. It also becomes an issue when the people who put the stats together are incompetent and classify the wrong crimes.

originally posted by: OneManArmy

So let me get this straight....

You are telling me that they cook the stats?

No.

Tell me something that I dont know.

it's not cooking the stats - it is long accepted and reasonable technique for separating "routine" from "exceptional".

As has already been posted and also here

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra



The first rule -
If you see something that does not look right - investigate it first before claiming its something its not.

Investigations can be thwarted, derailed, denied, however if tptb feel threatened by the information revealed.
It's a matter of secrecy used to keep the status quo.

And how do you investigate when all the sources have and agenda...the msm sucks and alternative media isn't any better. SOL when it comes to the truth in any capacity eh?

You investigate by going to the ORIGINAL SOURCE, in this case the FBI report which is the subject of the claim.

When you do that, you find that, surprise surprise, the conspiracy site making the claims is being deliberately deceptive and mIsrepresenting the report.

This is hardly advanced journalism: the source that is being discussed is in the public domain!

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra



The first rule -
If you see something that does not look right - investigate it first before claiming its something its not.

Investigations can be thwarted, derailed, denied, however if tptb feel threatened by the information revealed.
It's a matter of secrecy used to keep the status quo.

And how do you investigate when all the sources have and agenda...the msm sucks and alternative media isn't any better. SOL when it comes to the truth in any capacity eh?

You investigate by going to the ORIGINAL SOURCE, in this case the FBI report which is the subject of the claim.

When you do that, you find that, surprise surprise, the conspiracy site making the claims is being deliberately deceptive and mIsrepresenting the report.

This is hardly advanced journalism: the source that is being discussed is in the public domain!

Right....
The original source is immune from contamination and distortion? They don't have a sterling record of disseminating the truth either. Perhaps my naivety level has been set to 0 due to their past performance.

Public domain....you're joking right?

a reply to: Rob48

I was under the impression Alex Jones links / reports etc were banned by this site for this very reason. Making stuff up by intentionally ignoring facts.

originally posted by: olaru12

Right....
The original source is immune from contamination and distortion? They don't have a sterling record of disseminating the truth either. Perhaps my naivety level has been set to 0 due to their past performance.

Public domain....you're joking right?

Well technically it is immune from that, as it has been stated that the Bureau says the stats do NOT include the 27 killed for whatever reason. Also, as has been answered ad infinitum they can only go by for THAT PARTICULAR chart what is reported to them, they know there are other crimes, but if it's not reported to the people that put the chart together, and let's face it, it's hardly a scientifically perfect and researched set of figures, then it does not go on the chart.

There's no conspiracy to that, it's simply the way THAT particular chart is made/compiled, there are other charts, and while they may not be public, they have different info, stuff the public cannot see (ongoing investigations/court cases et al...

But that repost is not a 100% accurate representation,but it is a sampling, and that's all it really is intended for, a sampling so that the media can have it faster than their systems normally work.. oh and unless the chart says otherwise, if it's from a governmental agency, it's public domain..

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra



The first rule -
If you see something that does not look right - investigate it first before claiming its something its not.

Investigations can be thwarted, derailed, denied, however if tptb feel threatened by the information revealed.
It's a matter of secrecy used to keep the status quo.

And how do you investigate when all the sources have and agenda...the msm sucks and alternative media isn't any better. SOL when it comes to the truth in any capacity eh?

You investigate by going to the ORIGINAL SOURCE, in this case the FBI report which is the subject of the claim.

When you do that, you find that, surprise surprise, the conspiracy site making the claims is being deliberately deceptive and mIsrepresenting the report.

This is hardly advanced journalism: the source that is being discussed is in the public domain!

Right....
The original source is immune from contamination and distortion? They don't have a sterling record of disseminating the truth either. Perhaps my naivety level has been set to 0 due to their past performance.

Public domain....you're joking right?

I don't think you get what I am saying.

If the CLAIM is that the FBI released a report saying that there were no murders in Newtown, then the way to check this claim is to look at that FBI report and see if it really does say that.

When you do that, you find that it DOES NOT say that, unless you deliberately ignore the part of the report that states how the data is compiled. It shows crimes reported at the local level, NOT those at state level.

In other words, the person making the claim is either mistaken or (more likely considering the source) lying.

I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. It's a simple claim, and it is very simple to prove it wrong!

It makes no sense anyway. If there was some big conspiracy to create a fake shooting, then why would the FBI release figures saying there was no shooting? Like most conspiracy theories, it utterly fails the logic test.

originally posted by: vkey08

originally posted by: olaru12

Right....
The original source is immune from contamination and distortion? They don't have a sterling record of disseminating the truth either. Perhaps my naivety level has been set to 0 due to their past performance.

Public domain....you're joking right?

Also, as has been answered ad infinitum they can only go by for THAT PARTICULAR chart what is reported to them, they know there are other crimes, but if it's not reported to the people that put the chart together, and let's face it, it's hardly a scientifically perfect and researched set of figures, then it does not go on the chart.

Thats exactly where the problem lies.
Stats are skewed by so many factors, like a commander whose looking for a promotion, or a local politician that wants to look "hard on crime". Even corruption plays a part. Not to forget hundreds of other factors.
Which is why the phrase "Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics"

You are statistically more likely to drown in the sea after eating an ice cream, does that mean ice creams are dangerous, no it just means you are more likely to drown in the sea after eating an ice cream on the beach, because being at the beach and eating ice cream go hand in hand.

originally posted by: Rob48

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: Xcathdra



The first rule -
If you see something that does not look right - investigate it first before claiming its something its not.

Investigations can be thwarted, derailed, denied, however if tptb feel threatened by the information revealed.
It's a matter of secrecy used to keep the status quo.

And how do you investigate when all the sources have and agenda...the msm sucks and alternative media isn't any better. SOL when it comes to the truth in any capacity eh?

You investigate by going to the ORIGINAL SOURCE, in this case the FBI report which is the subject of the claim.

When you do that, you find that, surprise surprise, the conspiracy site making the claims is being deliberately deceptive and mIsrepresenting the report.

This is hardly advanced journalism: the source that is being discussed is in the public domain!

That is a great point. It would seem Alex Jones is of the same ilk as Jaime Maussan.
I think Alex has become a bit narcissistic. Power corrupts the best of us.

And the FBI gets LOL'd.
Awesome...

a reply to: vkey08

The information was submitted to the FBI,
How CSP or NPD (unsure which) can later ask that it not be included is beyond me.
Aurora was also submitted but not included and the Aurora PD doesn't know why.
What good are crime databases if they operate on such a willy-nilly basis?

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
And the FBI gets LOL'd.
Awesome...

Well, the thread was LOL'd, not the FBI. You don't think this should be in LOL? It is a lie after all.

a reply to: Asktheanimals

Was the FBI LoL'ed? I thought the ludicrous online lie behind the OP was LoL'ed...

originally posted by: Asktheanimals
a reply to: vkey08

The information was submitted to the FBI,
How CSP or NPD (unsure which) can later ask that it not be included is beyond me.
Aurora was also submitted but not included and the Aurora PD doesn't know why.
What good are crime databases if they operate on such a willy-nilly basis?

I ask myself that every day of my working life. We get stats forms every single morning that show how many civil rights things come in the previous day/week/year to date... 99.9% of the time the figures are off and the explanation we always get is "someone in DC asked that this case not be assigned as a valid number to the statistics" who the someone is, and why they would do it has always been, and will continue to be a mystery to me...

I don't have a high enough pay grade for that information LOL

This might shed some light on the why and why not regarding the information. It also explains why the information shows up on the State reports and not the federal reports.

NIBRS - Click for info - (National Incident-Based Reporting System)

In response to law enforcement’s need for more flexible, in-depth data, the UCR Program formulated the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). NIBRS presents comprehensive, detailed information about crime incidents to law enforcement, researchers, governmental planners, students of crime, and the general public. The South Carolina Law Enforcement Division conducted the pilot demonstration of this program in 1987. Since then, implementation of NIBRS has been commensurate with the resources, abilities, and limitations of the contributing law enforcement agencies.

Although participation grows steadily, data is still not pervasive enough to make broad generalizations about crime in the United States. However, several NIBRS studies and monographs are available on this site that demonstrate the great utility of NIBRS. Data collection and submission guidelines and NIBRS Frequently Asked Questions and NIBRS Incident Specific Questions are available as well to help law enforcement agencies with the implementation of and participation in NIBRS.

NIBRS - Frequently Asked Questions

The NIBRS collects data on each single incident and arrest within 22 offense categories made up of 46 specific crimes called Group A offenses. For each of the offenses coming to the attention of law enforcement, specified types of facts about each crime are reported. In addition to the Group A offenses, there are 11 Group B offense categories for which only arrest data are reported.

I looked through my copy of Crime in the United States and could not find any NIBRS data. Why?

* - Many agencies are either certified to report crime data through the NIBRS or are in the process of developing NIBRS reporting systems. However, until the UCR Program receives the majority of data via the NIBRS, the FBI will continue to report crime statistics to the nation in a traditional format. The FBI converts statistics submitted by agencies via the NIBRS to the traditional Summary format and incorporates them into the national crime database. When converting NIBRS data to the traditional Summary format, the UCR Program takes only one offense from each NIBRS incident based on the application of the Hierarchy Rule.


Any UCR reporting Agency is eligible to use the NIBRS system. However, if the agency does not meet the requirement set by NIBRS the information is not going to show up in the DOJ stats. I have seen some basic info relating to NIBRS and Newtown CT however I cannot find any information that specifically states that they are a NIBRS reporting agency.

My guess would be no since CT has the correct stats for the shooting and the DOJ does not. As an example my Agency reports to MIBRS as well as NIBRS (MIBRS = Missouri Incident Based Reporting System). A neighboring jurisdiction only reports to MIBRS do to their size and lack of resources.



Hope the info / link helps clear up some of the questions.