Freedom1Man
Regular Member
If 12,000 citizens were violated by agents of a foreign country, we'd be at war with them.
Less than 3000 reported would get us into wars with many countries. It's happened
If 12,000 citizens were violated by agents of a foreign country, we'd be at war with them.
Less than 3000 reported would get us into wars with many countries. It's happened
Less than 3000 reported would get us into wars with many countries. It's happened
Right. Less than 3,000 people killed by jihadists, and we declared a war on terrorism.
Then, the National Safety Council comes out with a study that shows we are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist.
How can being eight times more likely to be killed by anything than by a terrorist be minimized? You know minimizing is a manipulation child molesters use to minimize the heinous damage they inflict. And they usually get around to assigning responsibility to the victim.
Please cite. This is a claim that you've made over and over and over again in this and other threads.
Please cite the study, research, proof. Then how do you define your statement?
So would you say that most encounters are more like video 1.
http://youtu.be/K2M891x0oEo
Or video 2
http://youtu.be/CVHrpScqHsg
[video=youtube_share;CVHrpScqHsg]http://youtu.be/CVHrpScqHsg[/video]
lol...
So out of 800,000 officers (thats full time and part time) 6,613 were involved in some complaint. Thats .826 Percent of the total law enforcement employees. Read that again.... POLICEMISCONDUCT.net found that .826 percent of the law enforcement field was involved in some kind of incident.
If I'm all that safe from terrorists (and I do believe I am) then why is are so many agencies purchasing surplus MRAPS, forming the multitudes of SWAT teams, spending billions of dollars, collectively?Edit: anyone see the number of fatalities they found?.... 247 that there were complaints of misconduct filed. You can throw the "8 times more likely to get killed by police then terrrorists" all you want. That means NOTHING. That just means you are really really really safe from terrorists. Not that police are really really really dangerous.
As posted previously, the numbers are skewed due to police corruption. The Department of Justice does not come in and take over unless there is something amiss. Then we aren't obligated to ignore things like this:
http://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2009/06/04/most-nj-police-departments-violate-law-on-police-complaints
99 Percent Of Police Brutality Complaints Go Uninvestigated In Central New Jersey: Report
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/07/police-brutality-new-jersey-report_n_4555166.html
From 2008 to 2012, citizens filed hundreds of complaints alleging brutality, bias and civil rights violations by officers in more than seven dozen police departments in Central Jersey…
Just 1 percent of all excessive force complaints were sustained by internal affairs units in Central Jersey, the review found. That’s less than the national average of 8 percent, according to a federal Bureau of Justice Statistics report released in 2007.
National average of 8 percent of all excessive force complaints....substantiated, according to Bureau of Justice report.......
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20...ases-against-new-jersey-police-officers.shtml
Your numbers appear to be little more than mental masterbation, primus.
Lol... take it up with POLICEMISCONDUCT.net.
In fact you guys showed me this study to "prove" how bad the police are. Biting you in the a** now.
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
Not at all. The CATO Institute frequently refers to the numbers as "The Tip of The Iceberg".
They are graphs and statistics with numbers at hand. When you look at the amount of police corruption nationwide, and the fact nothing compels police department to turn in real numbers to the FBI in it's research, or cooperate at all, the scales tip in favor of cover ups, corruption, and as the CATO Institute says, "the tip of the iceberg".
Not at all. The CATO Institute frequently refers to the numbers as "The Tip of The Iceberg".
They are graphs and statistics with numbers at hand. When you look at the amount of police corruption nationwide, and the fact nothing compels police department to turn in real numbers to the FBI in it's research, or cooperate at all, the scales tip in favor of cover ups, corruption, and as the CATO Institute says, "the tip of the iceberg".
Oh look. Places other than the state of New Jersey has trouble compiling numbers and reporting police misconduct.
Dallas police assistant chief admits mishandling officer misconduct complaints
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crim...mishandling-officer-misconduct-complaints.ece
Spokane Wa. police cleared of every accusation of misconduct since 2007.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2012/sep/23/officers-cleared-in-every-case-of-excessive-force/
The same investigators found Klubber Karl Thompson "acted within his training" for beating Otto Zehm to death. Even scheduled a pot luck dinner to celebrate this ruling. He's sitting in a Federal pen because he was convicted of civil rights violations. The Feds uncovered wide spread and rampant cover ups and corruption within that department.
If we read the paper from the CATO institute, the numbers were sourced to the National Safety Council.
I have yet to run into a dangerous terrorist, unfortunately I cannot say the same for police.
At least under current law I'd be able to legally defend my life against the terrorist!
So I'd say the point made is a valid one.
Lol.... fuller. Keep digging brother. You'll find a million cases of cops "mishandling" complaints.
The Cato institute DIDINT USE JUST COPS for info. Probably for that exact reason.
Lol keep fetching boy wrong bone
Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
cop
Pronunciation: (kop), [key]
—v.t., copped, cop•ping. Informal.
1. to catch; nab.
2. to steal; filch.
3. to buy (narcotics).
4. cop a plea,
a. to plead guilty or confess in return for receiving a lighter sentence.
b. to plead guilty to a lesser charge as a means of bargaining one's way out of standing trial for a more serious charge; plea-bargain.
5. cop out,
a. to avoid one's responsibility, the fulfillment of a promise, etc.; renege; back out (often fol. by on or of): He never copped out on a friend in need. You agreed to go, and you can't cop out now.
b. cop a plea.
Read more: cop: meaning and definitions | Infoplease.com http://dictionary.infoplease.com/cop#
Ok.. so multiply it by... 2? 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10?
At 2 its 12,000 our of 700,000..... and again some are guaranteed on the same officer. At 10 times , which I doubt is true, it 60,000 out of 700,000. That's what? Less then 10%? So less then 10% (based on INFLATED num/bbers to account for your supposed complaints) of officers have ever had a complaint filed. So it'd be safe to say if an officer never had a complaint filed (because again that number takes in the missing and or non complaints due to fear) they wouldn't be violating peoples rights or having "bad encounters".
So 10% of encounters are bad. Damn..... the whole barrel is rotten.... sarcasm.