Police Shooting, Latest in Deadly String Nationwide`

[MyrnaLoy]

Last year "really marked the deadliest year for law enforcement in nearly two decades and that is obviously very worrisome." Holder said before his meeting with police chiefs from more than 25 cities and representatives from several federal law enforcement agencies. "This year we are unfortunately on track to exceed the number we saw last year,"

"Twenty-three officers and federal agents have been gunned down this year compared to 15 officers killed by guns at the same time last year. A total of 49 officers have been killed already this year, including five federal agents, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial."

http://abcnews.go.com/US/ga-police-shooting-latest-deadly-string-nationwide/story?id=13196876

[sharesunited]

1. How many of those dead officers supported the notion of guns and ammo in the hands of the public?

I can only assume that in their final moments they would have experienced a profound conversion.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MyrnaLoy]

5. thanks

for proving my point, only took around 8 minutes.

[BrookBrew]

6. What is your point? I see no content..

are you proposing some type of action or law that would impact the 2 year uptic in police shootings.

What about the other 50% of officer deaths that are not shooting related, any suggestions there?

Those probably dont support an agenda so maybe sweep them under the rug.

[MyrnaLoy]

12. do you

have an agenda? Mine is to show firearm violence happens and should be discussed, what's your agenda?

[rrneck]

16. Most people would want to discuss

the issue with the objective of finding a solution.

Some, on the other hand, just want to discuss it for their own emotional or ideological self fulfillment.

Which are you?

[BrookBrew]

20. Sure do..

mine is to underscore that firearm violence has causes , those causes are not the presence of a firearm.

I would also like to live in a country where palin is not the potus.

[rl6214]

73. Watch how fast the OP attacks other posters without addressing the story

Here, I fixed this for you. It is your statement with a slight modification. Instead of answering any questions, you turn whatever is said back on other posters and attack them.

Why is that?

[Atypical Liberal]

89. No one disputes that firearm violence happens.

No one disputes that firearm violence happens. I'm quite happy to discuss the fact that it is in decline, however, in spite of record sales of firearms and ammunition, and record levels of firearms in circulation.

[rrneck]

7. What point did the OP have? nt

[MyrnaLoy]

9. this is my point

A total of 49 officers have been killed already this year

[rrneck]

13. Yes, that's a tradgedy.

Do you have any ideas regarding the cause of those deaths or some way to reduce them without moving risk onto law abiding citizens?

[MyrnaLoy]

15. nope

do you?

[rrneck]

17. No.

But I didn't start this thread.

[MyrnaLoy]

60. is

having a solution a prerequisite for starting threads now?

[ManiacJoe]

69. It is not a requirement.

However, that just brings us back to the question, why did you post a current-event article without any comments or conversation starters?

[MyrnaLoy]

72. did it

start a conversation? You have the answer now.

[rrneck]

95. No. Playing the victim won't help either.

If you're looking to have your feelings validated I suggest you search elsewhere.

If you want your ideology supported I suggest you produce one that works. Starting a discussion toward that end would help. Cookies are hard to get around here.

[BrookBrew]

21. What about the 50% a year who die in non firearm incidents?

maybe we should ban patrol cars. Seems auto accidents are dangerous.

[Blown330]

23. You have to have a point...

...to begin with. You have none unless you are trying to prove that cops have dangerous jobs and sometimes die when criminals shoot them.

[Straw Man]

22. I see you have a new ghoulish meme...

...in which murdered officers experience death-moment conversions, wishing they had dedicated themselves to disarming law-abiding citizens rather than the murdering thugs at whose hands they are dying.

Killed in the line of duty: That'll teach 'em for believing in rights.

[sharesunited]

26. Murdering thugs enabled by the willful misinterpretation of the 2A.

[right2bfree]

29. Exactly. We need to make sure that only responsible people are allowed to own guns...

and that means going all the way back to thier violent behavoirs
as juveniles, if we need too. All these murders have to be ended
for good.

[BrookBrew]

41. Is this a joke? Hey lets break DR patient priv

and get records from there. Maybe Mrs Harriet my 3rd grade teacher can tell you about me punching little bobby. Do you in any sense of the words expect this to even be discussed by people with political power?

[sharesunited]

46. Mental health privacy as a smokescreen for gun rights?

No, that is going to be the first to fall.

[BrookBrew]

49. No, a poster is playing games with mental health.

so it will be interesting to see if they will really commit (ha ha) to the position and say they want a full mental health check to allow a right to be exercised.

So any exclusion criteria they dream up will be applied to the other rights enumerated. Bet they will not like that.

Hey I wonder if a woman getting an abortion could exclude her from owning a gun?

[sharesunited]

53. So glad you brought up abortion, because I agree they are related.

A woman has dominion over her body.

A gunshot victim has dominion over ammunition entering their body.

So how do we achieve the latter except by making guns and ammo scarce?

[BrookBrew]

55. Or a drunks car smashing their skull into pulp...

so we should ban alcohol, it is responsible for so many deaths. Hey they tried making alcohol scarce, i hear that failed.

I bet a gun ban would work wonderfully.

[sharesunited]

58. If we can make a trigger as detectable to an angry person as a steering wheel to a drunk person

then you might be onto something.

Otherwise, I need to disarm you.

Or at least limit your access to more weaponry.

[BrookBrew]

59. Well I wish you luck at that. Hopefully the people we voted into power

will not see that as reality. Just like prohibition, by regulating access "you" control what I have based on my income. Remove that and make me a criminal, there will be a reaction at the polls.

In reality an AK is worth 15,000 US because the NFA is enforceable, even mention some craziness like that and an AK is worth $500. Now with millions of criminals, the law in unenforceable. Just like prohibition failed with horrible consequences, so would that.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Straw Man]

101. Once more, in plain English, please.

If we can make a trigger as detectable to an angry person as a steering wheel to a drunk person

then you might be onto something.

I have no idea what that means. Drunk people can't find steering wheels? Gun owners shoot people whenever they get angry? WTF are you babbling about?

Otherwise, I need to disarm you.

No. You don't. You don't have that need or that right.

Or at least limit your access to more weaponry.

Because... people with two guns are more dangerous than people with one gun? Are people exponentially more dangerous the more guns they own?

[Straw Man]

94. Wrong.

Their criminal acts caused their rights to be forfeit. You would extend that forfeiture to non-criminals: hard to defend, legally or ethically.

Guns exist. Good luck with the Pandora action.

[PavePusher]

25. Ah, the "They were asking for it" school of victimhood.

Always nauseating, never classy.

[sharesunited]

27. No, it's more akin to voting against your own self interest.

Difficult to argue that cops are safer with guns and ammo available to the public.

Difficult to argue that ANYONE is safer.

[BrookBrew]

30. Hey during Prohibition there was no booze in Chicago right?

I mean lets just change the constitution and pass something that no one will ever follow..

What could go wrong?

[sharesunited]

42. Child porn is not protected by the First Amendment?

Why?

Political will is the only reason.

[BrookBrew]

43. And yet the digital camera is legal. There is no (known public)

system to inspect web cache appliances for file fingerprints of known illegal files. Why?

Would you support that technology?

[sharesunited]

44. Mere possession completely removes the need for that.

You can bust anyone you find who has it in their possession.

Someone who made it OR someone who just looks at it.

Who are you suggesting needs to be fingerprinted in a zero tolerance environment?

[BrookBrew]

45. Your ISP can inspect traffic before it gets to your pc. To look for illegal content

of course they would look at it all, "good" and "bad". So do you want every packet you send on a fcc compliant device to be constantly monitored with a pattern matching algorithm.

You know, in case you decide to become a criminal, just snap...?

Child porn, while illegal, is regretfully still out there. Just like murder. Making the act illegal is one thing, you cant ban the camera however.

There really is no more room for the gun control folks, like prohibition people, their time on stage has expired.

[sharesunited]

47. Will not let you compare a camera to guns and ammo.

One makes pictures. The other kills.

By design.

[X_Digger]

50. Both can be used in the commission of a crime..

Tool.. illegal action.

[BrookBrew]

51. You mentioned Porn

not me. I am happy to let gun rights stand alone and enjoy the rights accorded to me. I am also happy to enforce laws on the books, for child porn and criminals using guns.

I am not giving up my gun, and will still take a picture of my kid playing in the mud in their underwear. Both legal, both threatened by dangerous people at one time.

Thankfully those people are marginalized.

[X_Digger]

48. Gun is to murder as camera is to child porn..

When cameras are illegal to possess, your point will be valid.

Until then? .. *snort*

[sharesunited]

56. Except for one aspect.

Possession.

Your unlawful product is one with a dead body and a bullet wound in it.

The unlawful product you want to compare yourself to is one which can be viewed. Only and whatsoever.

[ManiacJoe]

64. You seem to be ignoring the victim of the child porn.

Child porn is illegal because the child is harmed during the production.

[YllwFvr]

80. cops safer with the population armed?

no, not likely. When I hit the streets my life will be in my hands (and yours) and thats a risk I knowingly took when I chose to enter the law enforcement field.
I choose to want US citizens to be armed.
Ive also seen people step up and save an officers life when it comes down to it. There are evil people in this world, side by side with the good. I wont punish everybody without cause, and neither should you.

[YllwFvr]

79. i support the second amendment

and I am very pro gun. Im only a police cadet for now though, so im not sure if youd count my vote without a shield yet

[Atypical Liberal]

88. Why would you assume that people have such frail convictions?

Even the father of the girl killed where Giffords was shot called for no new restrictions on liberty as a result of the shooting.

Many people carry their convictions to death. Geeze, ever hear of Sir Thomas More?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

90. You would assume wrong

[rrneck]

4. Short on information yet.

Since the suspect is was an armed carjacker (not the absence of the term "alleged") when the rest of the story finds its way to us we will no doubt he has a felony record about a foot thick.

[MyrnaLoy]

8. well there is

this small thing you must have missed, "A total of 49 officers have been killed already this year"

[rrneck]

11. Police work is a hard, dangerous job.

Do you have a solution, or just more pointless propaganda?

[right2bfree]

35. Yeap. 49 officers dead in less then three months. The laws they will be a changing....

and I'll bet that the NRA gunners wont like it one bit.

Good!!

[BrookBrew]

39. They may, but probably not. And those who change them will not like the outcome

in 2012. Continuing to piss down the leg of legal gun owners is a political disaster.

[right2bfree]

84. Not at all, Clinton took no heat from the 1994 AW ban. The new gun laws will be no different.

Obama could care less what you or the NRA think, so get over it already.

[X_Digger]

87. What dream world are you living in?

"Just before the House vote (on the crime bill), Speaker Tom Foley and majority leader Dick Gephardt had made a last-ditch appeal to me to remove the assault weapons ban from the bill. They argued that many Democrats who represented closely divided districts had already...defied the NRA once on the Brady bill vote. They said that if we made them walk the plank again on the assault weapons ban, the overall bill might not pass, and that if it did, many Democrats who voted for it would not survive the election in November. Jack Brooks, the House Judiciary Committee chairman from Texas, told me the same thing...Jack was convinced that if we didn't drop the ban, the NRA would beat a lot of Democrats by terrifying gun owners....Foley, Gephardt, and Brooks were right and I was wrong. The price...would be heavy casualties among its defenders." (Pages 611-612)

"On November 8, we got the living daylights beat out of us, losing eight Senate races and fifty-four House seats, the largest defeat for our party since 1946....The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage...." (Pages 629-630)

"One Saturday morning, I went to a diner in Manchester full of men who were deer hunters and NRA members. In impromptu remarks, I told them that I knew they had defeated their Democratic congressman, Dick Swett, in 1994 because he voted for the Brady bill and the assault weapons ban. Several of them nodded in agreement." (Page 699)

--William J. Clinton, My Life

[GreenStormCloud]

92. A bit over 50% of Congress has NRA "A" ratings.

Do you really think that you are going to see any new gun control legislation out of that kind of congress? There will be no new gun control laws. However, there may be a national reciprocity bill that requires states to recognize each other's CCW licenses.

[BrookBrew]

10. What do you propose for the non gun related deaths (50% or so)

any care about those deaths? Dangerous road they are looking down. This is when the administration gets to choose if they give 2012 away for some do nothing gun laws ignored by criminals..

Important.

[MyrnaLoy]

14. I didn't post

this to suggest I have a solution, I posted it so people can see gun violence is on the rise against law enforcement.

[rrneck]

18. The Pacific Ocean was on the rise against Japan. nt

[GreenStormCloud]

19. Criminals appear to be getting more violent. Therefore it is a good idea for citizens to be armed.

I can't very well protect myself from violent criminals if I am unarmed.

[right2bfree]

33. So what about all those victims of gun violence in Tuscon who "needed" as gun? I'll bet you...

..that they would have wanted this mentally ill person disarmed,
now that they are dead, correct?

[BrookBrew]

40. Define mentally ill.. in a general sense

who are you talking about?

[right2bfree]

70. Anyone who has taken leave of their senses, of course. What did you think? nt

[BrookBrew]

86. That is not a medical diagnosis. So any person who has been diagnosed

with depression? post postpartum or otherwise. How about PTSD, even if treated? I guess anyone who ever had a panic attack would be excluded?

How are you going to get this information, the law does not support this now?

Do you plan on applying it to the right to vote and free speech as well?

"leave of there senses" is something my grandmother says about anyone who does something she does not like..

[GreenStormCloud]

54. What does you post have to do with me being armed for self-defense? N/T

[right2bfree]

71. If you suffer from paranoia, you need help, not a bunch of firearms to possibly kill people with. nt

[PavePusher]

98. Now you are making accusations of mental illness.

I'm pretty sure that's against the rules.

[right2bfree]

28. Good post! Our Police officers deserve our utmost respect dealing with these gun owners every day...

its too bad that so many of them have to pay tghe ultimate price
when the bad guys get the drop on them.

Thats what gun-control laws are needed more then ever now.

[PavePusher]

36. What law will keep criminals from getting guns?

Heck, what law will even slow them down appreciably?

[rl6214]

37. How about you be truthfull in your posting

Police officers deserve our utmost respect in dealing with these CRIMINALS WITH GUNS every day.

It's got nothing to do with almost all "gun owners", you even got it right here:

"when the BAD GUYS get the drop on them".

We don't need more gun control laws, we need to make sure the laws that are on the books are enforced and that the convicted criminals get the maximum sentence.

[right2bfree]

68. The problem is that many of you ARE the bad guys, when you commit a gun crime. nt

[rl6214]

74. The problem is many of us are not the bad guys and

have never committed a crime so YOU have no right to touch our firearms. Innocent until proven guilty ring a bell?

[PavePusher]

99. And now you accuse us of criminal behavior.

Really?

[gejohnston]

62. Would be nice if

Your view matched reality. Not my reality or yours, but empirical, peer reviewed science. Everything your side, and Brady propaganda, flies in the face of peer reviewed criminology studies for the past 35 years. Disarming law abiding people will not reduce crime. It has not happened in any place in the world. The states that have the worst crime rates in the US have stricter gun control laws than most of Europe. At best, you are looking at a one for one cancellation. For each life saved is canceled out by another taken because they could not defend themselves. Additional price? That is what (in the larger context of cultural imperialism and elitism) destroyed the FDR coalition.
Tragic as they are, 90 percent of those who commit murder are convicted felons. They are barred by the Gun Control Act of 1968 possessing a firearm for life. In Canada, a felon can legally own one after five years. Want to watch something entertaining? Go to you tube and search for Gary Kleck debate Paul Helmke. Watch the good liberal criminologist wipe the floor with the right wing hack Helmke's nonsense.

[Blown330]

109. You didn't post anything....

...of real importance anyway. Looking at the facts behind your figures.

www.odmp.org

Current as of 22 March 2011, 2011 LoD Deaths:

Total Line of Duty Deaths: 48
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 12
Duty related illness: 4
Explosion: 1
Gunfire: 22
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 2
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 1

Looks like half resulted from vehicle accidents or personal health problems. Nice spin attempt but you failed anyway.

[right2bfree]

31. Funny but lots of truck drivers wont be driving soon due to a new law called CSA2011...

so I guess, using YOUR "logic" you want unqualified truck drivers
out on the roads, as well as everyone armed, no matter how impared
or sick in the head they are too, correct?

[BrookBrew]

38. Assuming the antis could pass a new prohibition

law on firearms it would be just as effective as the last one. I used to have a CDL, rules relating to logged hours and inspections are not equivalent to limiting an individual right.

If a pilot can fly a 777 and take a SSRI drug a person with a treated illness can own a gun. This stupid shit would DQ 25% of the combat marines and infantry right now.

Just remember that any elected person even attempting to propose such a reg would be out of office in no time.

[right2bfree]

63. Thats your take on it, Come 2012, the rubber will hit the road and the new AW ban...

..will put an end to this nonsense of 30 bullet magazines and mentally
ill people possessing firearms, so that they can kill people, like in AZ.

[rl6214]

75. You wanna bet on that new AW ban?

I'd be willing to place that bet that it won't happen.

[VoteProgressive]

24. Bad guys have guns. So good guys need them also! nt

[right2bfree]

32. So how do you determine who the "good guy" is? Oh, thats right; you dont care as long as you .

...have your gun, isn't that about right?

[rrneck]

34. The good guys

are the ones who don't rob, rape, and murder you.

[right2bfree]

65. What about gunp-owners who kill thier family after abusing drugs and booze?

Yes, they _USED_ to be "law-abiding gun-onwers" too.

[YllwFvr]

81. until they do it

then theyve broken no law and cannot be punished. Pre crime doesnt exist in america. Let me check my crimes code...
nope

[right2bfree]

83. Really? So if a person tell someone they "might" think about killing someone, that person should be

allowed to own guns?

[YllwFvr]

85. the phrase you are looking for is

"overt act"
right near here a few guys planned to attack Fort Dix, a military base. They talked about it and people overheard. Not illegal until they take a significant step towards doing it.
Until theyve broken the law I would have no ability to do anything.
If you overhear someone talking about killing somebody take it to the authorities, they will do what they can. I never advocate waiting to see what happens but unless theyve done something wrong there isnt much that can be done. Until you have that overt act there is nothing to do, what would you suggest?

[rrneck]

96. A manipulative over simplification.

Try again.

[Marengo]

91. And firearms are the ONLY implement used for killing?

What about knives or heavy, blunt objects? Should such things be seized from those in treatment for mental illness? To be consistent, it would seem you must agree. Or, do you deny that objects other than firearms CAN be used to harm or kill?

[GreenStormCloud]

93. For those guys it was a long time since they were law-abiding.

I is extremely rare for a person to commit murder as their first crime. Almost always they have a history of violence and crime.

[rrneck]

97. Bad guys abuse people.

You're demanding that a bubble of good karma and emotional reassurance be placed around you. You don't have that right. Portraying all gun owners as potential criminals is rude. Joe McArthy would be proud.

[GreenStormCloud]

52. Easy. The guy trying to rob me is the bad guy. N?T

[right2bfree]

66. What about when/if you go off the deep end and need medications? What then? nt

[GreenStormCloud]

78. The guy trying to rob me is still the bad guy. N/T

[VoteProgressive]

57. Your tone says you would not listen to logic anyway.

[right2bfree]

67. IOW, you have nothing to say about this. Well, that's OK. The new NFSA will take care of this. nt

[rl6214]

76. You still won't reveal what the "new NFSA" is.

Is this something that is secret only to you?

[right2bfree]

102. Nope. Its a new gun safety proposal that has yet to make it to congress.

When it does you will know about it. :bounce:

[rrneck]

105. Oooooooohhhhhhh,

Why don't you describe it, provide a link, or something. Or is this some sort of secret legislation that nobody will know about until it passes?

[GreenStormCloud]

106. And it will die in committee, like all the other gun-ban bills. N/T

[Euromutt]

77. I think Radley Balko covered this one quite well

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/31/the-anti-cop-trend-that-isnt

Amid all the quotes from concerned law enforcement officials in MSNBC's "War on Cops" article, for example, is a casual mention that police fatality statistics for this month are about the same as they were in January 2010. Right after suggesting to NPR that the recent attacks were related to anti-government rhetoric, Shane acknowledged there has been little research into the underlying causes of police shootings.

In truth, on-the-job police fatalities have dropped nearly 50 percent during the last 20 years, even as the total number of cops has doubled. According to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, 279 cops were killed on the job in 1974, the worst year on record. That number steadily decreased to just 116 in 2009. The leading cause of death for cops on duty is car accidents, not violence. For the last several years, the number of officers intentionally killed on the job each year has ranged from 45 to 60, out of about 850,000 cops on the beat.

Emphasis in bold mine.

[YllwFvr]

82. I did this math myself

when I decided to become a LEO. My family was worried about hearing I was killed on the job. You are exactly right. LEO deaths have been going down per capita, the numbers themselves when taken out of context can be alarming but mean nothing really. Ill take an armed public, they can keep the AWBs and disarmed passive cry babies.

[slackmaster]

100. Anyone who is interested an actual data about felonious killings of LEOs can get it from the FBI

http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2009/data/table_01.html

[Kennah]

103. I'm going to call bullshit

The AG said last year "really marked the deadliest year for law enforcement in nearly two decades ..."

61 officers killed by gunfire is NOT the deadliest year for law enforcement in nearly two decades.

Go to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, LEOKA (Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted). Look in Table 27 in the most recent reports, but it previously was Table 28, I believe.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats

Here are the numbers year by year for officers feloniously slain by gunfire since 1987.

1987 - 67
1988 - 76
1989 - 57
1990 - 57
1991 - 68
1992 - 54
1993 - 67
1994 - 78
1995 - 62
1996 - 57
1997 - 68
1998 - 58
1999 - 41
2000 - 47
2001 - 61
2002 - 51
2003 - 45
2004 - 54
2005 - 50
2006 - 46
2007 - 56
2008 - 35
2009 - 45
2010 - 61

If one wished to rank years in order, 1994 is #1 and 2010 is tied with 2001 for #8. These are not per capita numbers even though the number of law enforcement officers rises every year.

1 - 1994 - 78
2 - 1988 - 76
3 - 1991 - 68
3 - 1997 - 68
5 - 1987 - 67
5 - 1993 - 67
7 - 1995 - 62
8 - 2001 - 61
8 - 2010 - 61
10 - 1998 - 58
11 - 1989 - 57
11 - 1990 - 57
11 - 1996 - 57
14 - 2007 - 56
15 - 1992 - 54
15 - 2004 - 54
17 - 2002 - 51
18 - 2005 - 50
19 - 2000 - 47
20 - 2006 - 46
21 - 2003 - 45
21 - 2009 - 45
23 - 1999 - 41
24 - 2008 - 35

[speltwon]

104. Thank you for some actual stats. Having worked in law enforcement myself for a long time

I find it amusing how people are always looking for trends, patterns, etc. without sufficient data etc. It's similar to many I see in stock/futures trading who see "trends" and "patterns" in every inkblot of the charts

There are SOME confounding realities as well. For example, back in 1987, officers wearing vests was common, but not as nearly universal as it is now. Also, trauma medicine has gotten better over time, so many of the officers shot that would have died in the past, don't die now. etc.

My point is I don't see any clear trend. Evidence of one may develop, but at this point, what I see is data points that don't indicate anything in particular. I will also note that the science of officer safety, defensive tactics, firearms proficiency, and more realistic training are all factors that help reduce officer shooting deaths NOW vs. 20 yrs ago. We are better trained, better prepared, better armed, etc. than we were 20 yrs ago. That also helps. Also, the prevalence of less lethal devices such as tasers etc. in my opinion have helped officers bring more suspects under control with less force that lessens those circs where a suspect overpowers an officer, gets his gun and kills him, etc.

[Kennah]

107. The bad myths about LE stun me

"Most cops are killed with their own guns"

Not sure if it was ever true, but certainly the number of officer disarms went down significantly after Jim Lindell.

"Most cops fire X number of rounds per shooting incident"

Anecdotal evidence and short term studies for some agencies. Not very comprehensive.

"More cops commit suicide than are murdered"

This one is incredibly complex. Police suicides, from all I can discern, are way off the charts compared to a lot of other things that kill cops. However, compared to appropriate comparison groups (by age and race), it's actually lower than the national average. That said, it seems plausible to link suicides for cops to their work to a greater extent than for lots of other professions.

[speltwon]

108. Those are based on understandable misinterpretations

"Most cops are killed with their own guns"

That's based on a false understanding of a true stat. MOST of the time an officer is disarmed by a suspect, he uses the gun against the cop. About 3/4 of the time. Iow, it is true that most of the time a suspect gets an officer's gun, he shoots the officer with it. It is not true that most of the time an officer is killed, it's with his own gun. Iirc, it's currently less than 15%

**--"More cops commit suicide than are murdered"

This one is incredibly complex. Police suicides, from all I can discern, are way off the charts compared to a lot of other things that kill cops. However, compared to appropriate comparison groups (by age and race), it's actually lower than the national average. That said, it seems plausible to link suicides for cops to their work to a greater extent than for lots of other professions.--"

Correct. If you look at the demographics of cops, the suicide rate isn't particulary bad. Remember for instance that the VAST majority of suicides are men. Cops are disproportionately male. About 85% last I checked. So, when one normalizes for gender (and race - note there is disparity there as well), cops don't have a particular bad suicide rate. Considering the crap they go through, it's actually surprisingly low imo