jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (21 posts)

1. Firearm fatalities: 71% from police brutalities that's a large number and it

  1. PassionButterfly profile image70
    PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago

    This was a static from 2014.  71% is a large number I don't care if the were 250 million people on earth.  Police deaths from aggressive force is too many

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Define "police brutality", please.  Is it any time they draw a weapon?

    2. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Are you saying:

      71% of all firearm fatalities worldwide are due to police shooting civilians?

      ...due to police shooting civilians unprovoked?

      ...due to shooting in response to shots fired on them?

      ...71% of all firearm fatalities in the United States are due to those things?

      Sorry, I don't buy it at all. What's your source? And how do they define "brutality?"

      Oh! And I think the word you're looking for is "statistic."

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I would agree it is a very large number, so large that it necessitates the need for factual information to be put forth to support it. For all we know, it could be a static from 2014 that you just made up.

      Citations and sources, please.

  2. PassionButterfly profile image70
    PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago

    This is exactly what i am talking about.  The ignorance of what is right in front of you.  and excuse me for spelling statistic wrong this is not a spelling contest.  my fact are from many sources one source which people have a tendency to believe.  The F.B.I. website,  the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project and  quietmike.org and many many more all with the same statistics.  Learn what you are talking about before doubting.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Nope, not a spelling contest. It is a writer's forum though. I was just being helpful.

      Regarding your information, you really didn't give any, and, sadly, it wasn't clearly presented. What you've posted now, however, looks too be more detailed and clear. Thanks. I wasn't trying to belittle you or contest what you're saying...I was trying to get some more detail, because the way it was originally posted didn't illustrate your point as well as I think you were hoping to.

      My apologies for any confusion or terse tone.

      1. PassionButterfly profile image70
        PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

        thanks will have a complete hub for you soon

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          You ask forum participants to wait for a personal hub for answers to a question posed in a forum?

          What's up with that? Are you looking for help with research? Are you doing a little self-promotion?

          Your 71% number has been challenged. Does it take a hub to explain where it comes from?

          Just sayin'

          GA

          1. PassionButterfly profile image70
            PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

            first off I got my 71% from the fbi website, the national police website, and many more.  When I pose the question I want to know what people thought about it.  I was creating the hub in the first place before I put that question out there. Now that I know some of the opinions of the public I feel I can then enlighten you about a problem we have as a country and as a country what we can do to stop it.  as far as research, I have done it and is still doing it due to I like to check more than one resource and speaking to policemen theirselves.  My father, uncle, and 4 cousins are policemen, so it was my goal to trash police it was my goal to bring awareness to a problem.  As long as we continue to act as though there is no problem, it will never be solved.

            1. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              The problem appears to be that the data you provided does not support your 71% claim. Folks are just asking where it comes from, and I don't think they mean which website, but rather which data set. Because the one you provided does not help.

              Police brutality is a very volatile topic. Extremes will shout their support for one side or the other. While folks willing to hold a more rational conversation about the topic look to discuss the reality of facts, not emotional and anecdotal declarations.

              You were almost off to a good start, (providing a reasonably credible source), but you left a gap between the claim and the supporting data. Hence the blowback about the 71% claim.

              If you are doing a hub on the topic, then surely you have evaluated the data that supports your claim - just provide it and the conversation will move forward.

              For instance; someone pointed out that the number of police interactions, (in any set time frame - say per year), must surely be in the millions, (nationwide), yet I would suspect, (as the other person noted), that even if you took the most liberal claims about the number of annual police brutality instances the percentage would be so small it would hardly compare to the claims folks make, (like your 71%).


              Just sayin'

              GA

              1. PassionButterfly profile image70
                PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                your government officials and websites makes these claims as i will present in my well researched hub soon.  rather large or small it needs to stop  domestic relation problems are small too however we see it as a problem why is that?  because more non minorities are effected.  this is the problem

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Well... ah... Oh heck, I admit it. I don't have a clue what you meant to say there.

                  GA

                  1. PassionButterfly profile image70
                    PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    whatever dud this is why , never mind just whatever DUDE

  3. PassionButterfly profile image70
    PassionButterflyposted 2 years ago

    National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project the F.B.I. website and quietmike.org all with the same statistics.  Look it up.

    4,861 – Unique reports of police misconduct tracked
    6,613 - Number of sworn law enforcement officers involved (354 were agency leaders such as chiefs or sheriffs)
    6,826 - Number of alleged victims involved
    247 – Number of fatalities associated with tracked reports
    $346,512,800 – Estimated amount spent on misconduct-related civil judgments and settlements excluding sealed settlements, court costs, and attorney fees.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      I'm very confused.  Your headline says 71%. Where does that number come from? According to the numbers you offered, fatalities account for less than 4% of the total number of victims involved.

      Am I missing something?

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image61
      EncephaloiDeadposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Please explain how that adds up to 71%?

    3. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      And 247 is 71% of what, exactly?  While we know the answer is 348, 348 what?  Firearm fatalities in the US?

  4. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    Ever consider - Cops do the job that you don't want to do?  Cops do the job so you won't have to deal with the ugly side of life?  Cops do the job between 8pm and 5am when most normal folks are home with the family?  Cops do the job for $40 dollars an hour (or more) while athletes entertain you at about $6500 an hour?  Cops die doing a job you could not handle?

  5. mishpat profile image61
    mishpatposted 2 years ago

    Now that you have had time to consider the previous, consider this.  These were not excuses though they may appear to be.  Few people want this job which, in most cases, the normal thinking person has to deal with abnormal behavior.  (The word normal is usually replaced with "prudent.")  How does a prudent person deal with the part of society that haunts the cities after dark.   They must think and act like those the are up against.  Thinking and reacting as a 9 to 5 citizen can be a fatal error.  And reaction has to meet the situation.  (Edit: The officer, in many cases has to swing shift which means swing thought process.  If this is not done properly, he will also put himself in jeopardy: You can't treat daytimers like the night timers and vice versa.) Later, during the 4 to 6 week trial, if there is one, the officer will be assessed by those who have had several month prior to the trial to analyze every moment.  And the general society complains each time there is a proposed tax for higher wages for police and fire.  The amount can usually be broken down to a minimal amount, yet these same folks think nothing of spending a couple hundred dollars to go to a ball game or hockey game, some having seasons tickets.  And the bottom line is, most folks cannot handle the job of dealing with the dregs of society day in and day out.

    As to "statistics," they are the result of whatever agenda the person in power, politicians, the affluent, hangers-on or combination of all.  The parameters for the UCR are set by the FBI and the criteria is open to change with each new regime that takes power.  The criteria is flexible so the compiler can use Part 1, 2, and 3 crimes in a manner that best fits his marching orders.

    Statistics are nothing more than figures.  And the old saying is prevalent here in these statistics.  "Figures don't lie, but liars do figure."

  6. FishWriter56 profile image66
    FishWriter56posted 2 years ago

    Take a look at a great crime-drama-thriller film by Orson Welles called "Touch Of Evil."  In it, Charlton Heston plays a super ethical narcotics detective who works for the Mexican government, and Welles plays a jaded American police Captain who could not catch his wife's strangler because of lack of evidence and has spent the bulk of his career framing suspects by planting evidence to ensure that they are convicted.  Their paths meet over a drug case that crosses between the Mexican and American borders.  At one point the Heston character challenges the Welles character when he, the Welles' police Captain, complains that "Our job  is tough enough...." by stating: "It's got to be tough! It's meant to be tough!  That's the whole point Captain....Who's the boss, the cop or the law?"

  7. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 2 years ago

    How do you present statistics for a year that is not yet even complete yet?

 
working