Support NeoGAF

[Shamrock7r]

My referencing the "policework is dangerous" arguments in the topic is specifically calling out people who use it alongside the war on cops bullshit to state that cops should be immune from scrutiny or should be given more leeway when they kill people because they have more to fear, and believe me, THIS IS A COMMON THING.

Policework is dangerous, but it's not as dangerous as police are trained to believe it is, to the point that they go on the job psychologically ready to be terrified for their lives and shoot to kill first. It's been getting less dangerous.

It isn't dangerous enough for cops to shoot first, ask questions later, to be afraid of black, Hispanic, and mentally ill civilians like Jason Harrison, to see black children as older and more dangerous and responsible than they are, nor is it dangerous enough for wide-eyed, scared out of their wits, Barney Fife fucks like this to hold up a gun in a wide-eyed frenzy like he's facing his last stand.

Now, currently, or at least as of 2014, the CDC did not have the funding to log non-fatal violence statistics, and kept to fatalities to cut costs.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics on firearm violence from 1993 to 2011 indicates nonfatal firearm crimes declined 69%, from 1.5 million victimizations in 1993 to 467,300 victimizations in 2011, 90% of nonfatal firearm victimizations were committed with a handgun, but only about 61% of nonfatal firearm violence was reported to the police in 2007-11. This document has all the statistics you could possibly want, except violence against police specifically. "It shows a decline, from an average of about 22,000 nonfatal shootings in 2002, to roughly 12,000 a year from 2007 to 2011, according to a Department of Justice statistician. But over the same time period, CDC estimates show that the number of Americans coming to hospitals with nonfatal, violent gun injuries has actually gone up: from an estimated 37,321 nonfatal gunshot injuries in 2002 to 55,544 in 2011. These numbers include only injuries caused by violent assault, not accidents, self-inflicted injuries, or shootings by police."

The data is all over the place.

This article goes into more depth on why nobody is keeping better track of non-fatal statistics. "The CDC numbers are based on a representative sample of 63 hospitals nationwide, and the margin of error for each estimate is very large. The CDC's best guess for the number of nonfatal intentional shootings in 2012 is somewhere between 27,000 and 91,000" and "the number of people injured by gunshot wounds has held steady over the past decade".

I'll keep trying to find statistics on non-fatal shootings toward police, but my guess based on all this is: I won't find much.

I don't disagree with anything you said here.

 

[Aselith]

Yea but how many cops were killed by rap cars this year?

69

 

[Orbis Tabula]

Maybe the War on Police is really about how much people hate port towns in the Northwest of Poland.

 

[The Faceless Master]

What evidence? That cashier is more likely to get shot and killed?

yep.

110 retail workers in 2010.

 

[soundahfekz]

Hey, if you don't want to think critically about what information is put in front of you, that's your prerogative. I'm not saying that violence against police is up, because I don't have that information. I'm just saying that you can't make broad conclusions about violence against police or police safety based only on police death statistics.

EDIT:



Copying from PDFs can be a pain no matter the technology used to access them. Was this the part you were going to quote?



That would equate to an extra 100 deaths per year on average without body armor.

Critical thinking huh. Lmao

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

69

umm, did you miscount? My research clearly says 187...

 

[The Faceless Master]

Hey, if you don't want to think critically about what information is put in front of you, that's your prerogative. I'm not saying that violence against police is up, because I don't have that information. I'm just saying that you can't make broad conclusions about violence against police or police safety based only on police death statistics.

EDIT:

Here is a crs study: https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43544.pdf

It's a short study with a number of interesting findings, including the increased useage of vests over years and how many lives would be saved if vests were made universal. I unfortunately for some reason can't copy paste this using my ipad.

Copying from PDFs can be a pain no matter the technology used to access them. Was this the part you were going to quote?

A frequently cited statistic is that armor vests have saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers over the past 30 years[.]

That would equate to an extra 100 deaths per year on average without body armor.

*clicks link*

*looks for citation*

i went 4 citations deep to find the source of this gem since i had to find out where the 3,000 number came from.

In addition, data collected in part by the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) indicate that body armor has saved the lives of more than 3,000 law enforcement officers since 1987.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588573.pdf

the cops provided the number? but wait, where did the cops get the number!?

from the guys that sell the vests.

DuPont is proud to partner with the IACP to help promote body armor wear via the IACP/DuPont™ Kevlar® Survivors Club®. This partnership began in 1987 and to-date has honored over 3100 officers who have been saved from death or serious injury by wearing body armor. The information collected from these “saves” is collected, maintained in a confidential database, and is shared by written request with academia, the Dept. of Justice, and others to promote wear and improve armor designs.

join the club!

 

[Metaphoreus]

Critical thinking huh. Lmao

Foreign concept huh. ¯\_(&#12484_/¯

 

[HeySeuss]

yep.

110 retail workers in 2010.

So in 2010, there were 59 officers killed by shooting versus 110 retail workers. In 2010 there were estimated 900,000 police officers employed in the United States. In 2010 there were an estimated 4.3 million retail workers in the United States. So all things being equal, per capita, police officers were shot and killed more frequently than retail workers.

But then again, you're calling everyone in retail a cashier, which also isn't accurate, which would make your argument even more nonsensical. But that's kinda splitting hairs.

 

[NullPointer]

1 officer could die in the entire year and there would still be a "war on police". Why? because there is an increase in negative reactions towards police due to the sensationalism.

Sensationalism. Right.

No actual, valid reasons for negativity. Nope. Nothing to see here folks. Move along.

 

[Metaphoreus]

*clicks link*

*looks for citation*

i went 4 citations deep to find the source of this gem since i had to find out where the 3,000 number came from.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588573.pdf

the cops provided the number? but wait, where did the cops get the number!?

from the guys that sell the vests.

join the club!

Thanks for doing all the legwork. What do you think the number really is? 0?

 

[The Faceless Master]

So in 2010, there were 59 officers killed by shooting versus 110 retail workers. In 2010 there were estimated 900,000 police officers employed in the United States. In 2010 there were an estimated 4.3 million retail workers in the United States. So all things being equal, per capita, police officers were shot and killed more frequently than retail workers.

But then again, you're calling everyone in retail a cashier, which also isn't accurate, which would make your argument even more nonsensical. But that's kinda splitting hairs.

and with ~100m minorities, the hundreds of civilians killed by cops ain't even that bad per capita. nothing to see here.

Thanks for doing all the legwork. What do you think the number really is? 0?

ahahahaahahahahaahahahahaha

 

[JaggedSac]

Does anyone have the numbers for people fatally shot by cops by year?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Does anyone have the numbers for people fatally shot by cops by year?

and do those stats include the cases where the cops shoot innocent civilians but the criminals get charged because they were in the act of committing a crime?

 

[Aselith]

Does anyone have the numbers for people fatally shot by cops by year?

http://killedbypolice.net

 

[LookAtMeGo]

http://killedbypolice.net

Jesus. Civilians need more vests.

 

[The Faceless Master]

http://killedbypolice.net

officer involved shooting is a pretty strong trend in those articles

Jesus. Civilians need more vests.

and better training and better tactics

 

[brisk tacos]

Declining thanks to body armor, extra weaponry in the arsenal of police, and changes in training. There are now charities trying to get body armor for every officer in the U.S. The police are now equipped with AR/M-4 type rifles in many departments to counter all kinds of threats. And training has changed to include active shooter, ambushes, and different kinds of threats that police are now facing.

Saying that, the war on police is not about police death stats, but the portrayal of police by the public, media, and politicians. 1 officer could die in the entire year and there would still be a "war on police". Why? because there is an increase in negative reactions towards police due to the sensationalism. I have personally have seen people's ignorance grow toward what police can and cannot do.

Not only do most departments in the US not have body armor and "extra weaponry in the arsenal", but the president made it illegal for any government money to go towards police getting military grade weapons and equipment, while also trying to find legal ways to remove any such items already in possession of police forces.

Cops aren't just rolling around America in tanks with AKs except in a few highly visible cases, which directly led to laws being changed immediately.

 

[Metaphoreus]

ahahahaahahahahaahahahahaha

ha ha?

What do you think this is, a laughing forum? Let's hear some discussion already.

Do you believe it's possible that factors other than decreased violence against police can account for a falling number of annual police deaths? If so, what makes you think we can determine which is or are actually contributing to that fall simply by looking at the fall itself? How do you propose we distinguish between possible causal factors that are, and possible causal factors that are not, contributing to the fall in annual police deaths?

 

[Sianos]

Thanks for doing all the legwork. What do you think the number really is? 0?

Note that the 3000 does not only refer to prevented deaths, but to prevented potential "serious injuries" (with no definition of what a serious injury entails). Considering that the statistics provided on the OP do not include injuries from gunfire, only deaths, you cannot simply add average of 100 to each year for the past 30 years without also adjusting the older numbers to include "serious injuries".

You do make a good point that improvements in armor and medical technology may save more cops lives, but even adjusting for that there would still not be evidence to justify the recognition of a large-scale War on Police.

The numbers not being the absolute lowest they have ever been would not constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of a War on Police.

 

[timetokill]

Cops shot by civilians lowest ever.
Civilians shot by cops highest ever.

Sounds like a war on cops, all right.

 

[Sianos]

ha ha?

What do you think this is, a laughing forum? Let's hear some discussion already.

Do you believe it's possible that factors other than decreased violence against police can account for a falling number of annual police deaths? If so, what makes you think we can determine which is or are actually contributing to that fall simply by looking at the fall itself? How do you propose we distinguish between possible causal factors that are, and possible causal factors that are not, contributing to the fall in annual police deaths?

Do you think that these factors are significant enough to obscure the existence of a large-scale War on Police?

Also, the invention and distribution of more dangerous guns and more penetrative bullets, and the NRA's recent encouragement of widespread gun sales based on fear tactics and paranoia may skew the statistics the other way. There could be more guns being sold to more psychologically unfit people who go on to commit crimes and shoot at police, a confounding factor being reported as evidence of a large-scale War on Police that does not exist.

 

[AJLma]

http://killedbypolice.net

Woah, what?

 

[Metaphoreus]

but even adjusting for that there would still not be evidence to justify the recognition of a large-scale War on Police.

The numbers not being the absolute lowest they have ever been would not constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of a War on Police.

Of course. But neither can you simply say that a decreasing number of annual police deaths means there is no "war on police" (in the sense of escalating violence against police). That's just cherry-picking. One must account for all of these variables to come to a reasoned conclusion.

(Note that, as it turns out, the number of police assaulted in the line of duty has also been falling, since 2007 until at least 2013. The problem with this data is that it ends too soon. The idea of a "war on police" is of relatively recent vintage, and we won't be able to consider whether there's been an increase in assaults on police this year until late next year when the FBI releases its LEOKA report. But, it's still a data point worth considering.)

Do you think that these factors are significant enough to obscure the existence of a large-scale War on Police?

Without the data, how could I know? How could you? Only by defining "war on police" to mean "police being killed in the line of duty" can you resolve the question by looking solely at the numbers of police dying each year. But that's word games, not critical thought.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Note that the 3000 does not only refer to prevented deaths, but to prevented potential "serious injuries" (with no definition of what a serious injury entails). Considering that the statistics provided on the OP do not include injuries from gunfire, only deaths, you cannot simply add average of 100 to each year for the past 30 years without also adjusting the older numbers to include "serious injuries".

You do make a good point that improvements in armor and medical technology may save more cops lives, but even adjusting for that there would still not be evidence to justify the recognition of a large-scale War on Police.

The numbers not being the absolute lowest they have ever been would not constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of a War on Police.

also, it's the "International Association of Chiefs of Police" and nowhere in there do they say the 3000 number is US only.

 

[Sianos]

Of course. But neither can you simply say that a decreasing number of annual police deaths means there is no "war on police" (in the sense of escalating violence against police). That's just cherry-picking. One must account for all of these variables to come to a reasoned conclusion.

(Note that, as it turns out, the number of police assaulted in the line of duty has also been falling, since 2007 until at least 2013. The problem with this data is that it ends too soon. The idea of a "war on police" is of relatively recent vintage, and we won't be able to consider whether there's been an increase in assaults on police this year until late next year when the FBI releases its LEOKA report. But, it's still a data point worth considering.)



Without the data, how could I know? How could you? Only by defining "war on police" to mean "police being killed in the line of duty" can you resolve the question by looking solely at the numbers of police dying each year. But that's word games, not critical thought.

You're right, without hard data it's all just conjecture that can be rationalized both ways.

But sometimes word games must be played to tear misleading labels off of events, phenomena, and circumstances. Consider the connotation of the word "war" - the high death tolls, the militancy, the atrocities committed against civilians. If the statistics suggest that violence against police has lowered, remained steady, or even only had a minor increase this would not be enough to justify referring to the change in statistics as a "war". Connotations are being loaded to mislead the public, and they must be neutralized.

What would you imagine a War on Police to look like, in terms of the conventional definition of war? I would hazard to guess something more intense than a general decline in violence against police that, while possibly influenced by armor and medical technology, is also confounded in the opposite direction by more penetrative bullets and gun proliferation.

 

[Transhuman]

If you do the math, the odds of a police officer dying from gunfire in a homicide is pretty much even with a civilian's chance of getting killed in a firearm homicide. It's hard to calculate the exact percentages because there isn't clear data across the same year, but generally, officer deaths per 100,000 and civilian deaths per 100,000 are very close.

 

[Sianos]

also, it's the "International Association of Chiefs of Police" and nowhere in there do they say the 3000 number is US only.

I didn't even consider that! Do they define what a "law enforcement official" is and when they are deployed? There could also be a confounding of statistics from international police in countries wracked by civil war and severe gang violence.

My point with these statistics are that while a statistical trend of falling gun violence against police may not be enough to disprove the existence of a War on Police, considering the context that these numbers were already very low in relation to the number of total police officers, there would have to be a very, very large increase in deaths of police officers to even consider labeling the circumstances a war. I find it very unlikely that these statistics are confounded enough to obscure such an extreme trend.

 

[Metaphoreus]

But sometimes word games must be played to tear misleading labels off of events, phenomena, and circumstances. Consider the connotation of the word "war" - the high death tolls, the militancy, the atrocities committed against civilians. If the statistics suggest that violence against police has lowered, remained steady, or even only had a minor increase this would not be enough to justify referring to the change in statistics as a "war". Connotations are being loaded to mislead the public, and they must be neutralized.

This is a good point, but it's also important to not go too far. For instance, saying that being a cop is safer than being a retail worker (as Faceless has in this thread) is demonstrably--laughably--false. It benefits no one for misinformation of that kind--or of the kind introduced via connotation, as you note--to be introduced into public discourse.

 

[The Faceless Master]

I didn't even consider that! Do they define what a "law enforcement official" is and when they are deployed? There could also be a confounding of statistics from international police in countries wracked by civil war and severe gang violence.

quote says it all, confidential database, shared with bla bla etc... methodology unknown.

and why are you even replying to that clown anyway?

when there was some data on 3000 lives saved this happened

That would equate to an extra 100 deaths per year on average without body armor.

but a short dig later and pointing out that the data was from the cops and the body armor manufacturer and now its

Without the data, how could I know? How could you? Only by defining "war on police" to mean "police being killed in the line of duty" can you resolve the question by looking solely at the numbers of police dying each year. But that's word games, not critical thought.

#NotAllData

 

[Sianos]

I like arguing with Meta because he engages my own semantics based arguments, which is fun and a good mental exercise.

This is a good point, but it's also important to not go too far. For instance, saying that being a cop is safer than being a retail worker (as Faceless has in this thread) is demonstrably--laughably--false. It benefits no one for misinformation of that kind--or of the kind introduced via connotation, as you note--to be introduced into public discourse.

That is also true, I agree that saying a cop is safer than a retail worker is over-exaggeration. It could be argued that an off duty cop is "safer" than a retail worker because of their training, but that's clearly not what's being insinuated.

It could be argued that the declaration of the existence of a war is a more severe over-exaggeration, but you're right: that still doesn't make the less severe over-exaggeration any more right. And making overly exaggerated claims can cause people to overly compensate in the opposite direction for future statistics.

Being a cop is dangerous because there are criminals to be apprehended and civilians with guns who should have been barred from ownership of firearms acting dangerously, that much is true. But there is not significant evidence, or really any evidence I've seen at all to justify claiming the existence of a crisis severe enough to classify as a war.

 

[Metaphoreus]

when there was some data on 3000 lives saved this happened

but a short dig later and pointing out that the data was from the cops and the body armor manufacturer and now its

#NotAllData

You're complaining that I adjust my conclusions based on the evidence. When there was data presented in a reliable source (which I consider the Congressional Research Service to be as a matter of course), then I felt free to draw tentative conclusions from that data. (Not that expressing the results of dividing 3,000 by 30 in the subjunctive mood really deserve to be called "conclusions" of any sort, but I hope you won't begrudge me simplifying for present discussion purposes.) When the source of that figure was called into question, I decided it wasn't even worth arguing over. I accepted your contention that the figure was unreliable, making it but one more piece of data that we don't have.

So what? At least I haven't spent this entire thread denying that any other data could possibly call my pre-existing conclusion into question, which has been your shtick all along.

That is also true, I agree that saying a cop is safer than a retail worker is over-exaggeration. It could be argued that an off duty cop is "safer" than a retail worker because of their training, but that's clearly not what's being insinuated.

It could be argued that the declaration of the existence of a war is a more severe over-exaggeration, but you're right: that still doesn't make the less severe over-exaggeration any more right. And making overly exaggerated claims can cause people to overly compensate in the opposite direction for future statistics.

I think we've come to an agreement. I also think the Washington Post article I linked to earlier does a good job of explaining why the "war on police" rhetoric should be avoided. Given the potential inflammatory effects of such rhetoric on police behavior, I agree it should be avoided unless, at a minimum, there are data showing an increase in violence against police. At this point, we don't have much showing that. (Possibly one could make the case that (1) anti-police rhetoric coupled with (2) targeted killings of police justify the phrase, but I'll leave that to somebody else.)

 

[Jenov]

For non-Hispanic blacks: 16.94 firearm deaths per 100,000 pop
For non-Hispanic whites: 1.47 firearm deaths per 100,000 pop
For Hispanics: 7.93 firearm deaths per 100,000 pop

HOLY SHIT

The vast majority of those deaths are not by cops though.

 

[Metaphoreus]

The vast majority of those deaths are not by cops though.

That's not the point of the comparison. And each year, the police do kill more people than there are police killed.

 

[Aselith]

The vast majority of those deaths are not by cops though.

It wasn't intended to imply that. The OP was using that to point out civilian firearm deaths vs police officer firearm deaths and to highlight the likelihood of an officer being killed by gunfire is less than those civilians.

Also it highlights the difference in likelihood for a white dude vs the minorities highlight which is certainly stark.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=178816514&postcount=56

1,220,000 police officers in 2008 (most recent I could find), 41 police deaths by firearm.

0.00003360655% chance of dying by firearm.

So about 1/33333, or more than 3 times less likely to die from a firearm if you're an american civilian.

The figure this poster quoted is actually wrong since he converted a number into a percentage directly, it should be .003360655% chance of dying by firearm

But then if we look at civilian deaths especially the higher black shooting death figure, it works out to .01694% chance. White dudes are a little better off with only a .00147% chance. But realisticly, in all cases the chances of getting killed by a gun is pretty low. Cops are not getting gun downed constantly like some want to make you feel.

 

[JaggedSac]

http://killedbypolice.net

Thanks, was hoping for longer term numbers though.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

WWI was a rough time.

I think you mean prohibition.

 

[Sianos]

I think we've come to an agreement. I also think the Washington Post article I linked to earlier does a good job of explaining why the "war on police" rhetoric should be avoided. Given the potential inflammatory effects of such rhetoric on police behavior, I agree it should be avoided unless, at a minimum, there are data showing an increase in violence against police. At this point, we don't have much showing that. (Possibly one could make the case that (1) anti-police rhetoric coupled with (2) targeted killings of police justify the phrase, but I'll leave that to somebody else.)

Agreed. I also worry about the "war on police" rhetoric because it conflates (1) and (2) too much. There is a potential connection between a growing unrest with the state of the police force and violent action taken against the police, but I worry that drawing the connection too strongly will result in all anti-police rhetoric being viewed not as legitimate complaints but as a call to arms against the police.

I view the peaceful protests and the violence against police as two different effects of the unacceptable state of the police force. It could be argued that the protests raise awareness of the issue and therefore cause the violent action because without knowing about the issue people would be unable to respond violently to the issue, but also proves too much: it is unreasonable to suggest that we do not raise awareness of problems because some people may respond to learning about the problems in negative ways.

Violence against police would be unacceptable for ethical reasons alone and would also make it more difficult to change the system by giving the police legitimate reason to militarize and claim the existence of a war against them. Violence against police undermines the message of the peaceful protesters and is used to besmirch the character of the protests.

Simply put, the problem is the conflation of the message of the peaceful protesters with the actions of the violent tiny minority. The conflation of the two transfers the negative view of the violent tiny minority's action to the message being presented by the peaceful protesters, poisoning the message with negative associations and attempting to skew public perception against the message of the protesters on a purely emotional level.

 

[Aselith]

Thanks, was hoping for longer term numbers though.

Yeah, from my understanding, those numbers were being self-reported by departments and were very unreliable so some groups started tracking them directly given the recent high-profile shootings.

 

[JaggedSac]

Yeah, from my understanding, those numbers were being self-reported by departments and were very unreliable so some groups started tracking them directly given the recent high-profile shootings.

Gotcha.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

How many people have cops killed?

 

[Metaphoreus]

Agreed. I also worry about the "war on police" rhetoric because it conflates (1) and (2) too much. There is a potential connection between a growing unrest with the state of the police force and violent action taken against the police, but I worry that drawing the connection too strongly will result in all anti-police rhetoric being viewed not as legitimate complaints but as a call to arms against the police.

I view the peaceful protests and the violence against police as two different effects of the unacceptable state of the police force. It could be argued that the protests raise awareness of the issue and therefore cause the violent action because without knowing about the issue people would be unable to respond violently to the issue, but also proves too much: it is unreasonable to suggest that we do not raise awareness of problems because some people may respond to learning about the problems in negative ways.

Violence against police would be unacceptable for ethical reasons alone and would also make it more difficult to change the system by giving the police legitimate reason to militarize and claim the existence of a war against them. Violence against police undermines the message of the peaceful protesters and is used to besmirch the character of the protests.

Simply put, the problem is the conflation of the message of the peaceful protesters with the actions of the violent tiny minority. The conflation of the two transfers the negative view of the violent tiny minority's action to the message being presented by the peaceful protesters, poisoning the message with negative associations and attempting to skew public perception against the message of the protesters on a purely emotional level.

Well said.

 

[Random Painted HIghway]

*clicks link*

*looks for citation*

i went 4 citations deep to find the source of this gem since i had to find out where the 3,000 number came from.

http://www.gao.gov/assets/590/588573.pdf

the cops provided the number? but wait, where did the cops get the number!?

from the guys that sell the vests.



join the club!

Government-corporate joint research efforts are hardly unusual or unique and such a partnership is not an appropriate reason to discard findings. Do you have any research indicating a contrary finding? What exactly are your qualifications that we should choose your arguments over crs and the gao?

 

[Zukuu]

Of course it is lower. Shoot first, try to grasp the situation later is a fairly recent trend.

 

[CrushDance]

Declining thanks to body armor, extra weaponry in the arsenal of police, and changes in training. There are now charities trying to get body armor for every officer in the U.S. The police are now equipped with AR/M-4 type rifles in many departments to counter all kinds of threats. And training has changed to include active shooter, ambushes, and different kinds of threats that police are now facing.

Saying that, the war on police is not about police death stats, but the portrayal of police by the public, media, and politicians. 1 officer could die in the entire year and there would still be a "war on police". Why? because there is an increase in negative reactions towards police due to the sensationalism. I have personally have seen people's ignorance grow toward what police can and cannot do.

like that of blacks

 

[zychi]

Thanks to Colbert and his terrorist friends BLM, this year's number will skyrocket..

I know you're joking, but you really need to add a /s to the end of your posts lately. If someone goes through your post history, it looks like you actually mean this stuff.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

like that of blacks

Exactly. Unfortunately, dude is set on "war" mode..he's spoken on it plenty in the past, and it seems he's still talking the same. Shit scares the hell out of me. I'm too tall and black. Getting pulled over can end quite horrible because they might feel all Little Mac and all they see is Iron Mike winking..

I know you're joking, but you really need to add a /s to the end of your posts lately. If someone goes through your post history, it looks like you actually mean this stuff.

Funny..I just said that in another thread lol. I'll keep it in mind.

 

[Coriolanus]

Government-corporate joint research efforts are hardly unusual or unique and such a partnership is not an appropriate reason to discard findings. Do you have any research indicating a contrary finding? What exactly are your qualifications that we should choose your arguments over crs and the gao?

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy, mate.

 

[MisterFalcon]

The NYPD has statistics going back to 1971 in their annual report which shows the number of both police getting shot and shooting suspects being historically low.