Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I don't see any limitations in your statement, so it a very broad (actually not getting any broader) encompassing all LE/Security types. Unless you have a limit you would like to add now.
I have no interest in such, since that would be rather arbitrary and not data-supported. Law enforcement/security types are not always or even often honest -- especially about the stopping of innocent people.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I appreciate that this is your opinion.
Yes... but a reasonably informed one.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
This data shows that your data doesn't apply to the U.S. Thanks for clearing this up and showing that it doesn't represent the U.S.
Is this typical? You have admitted that you have not seen the data/studies that I have referred to. So your claim that such data/studies does not apply to the US is a claim made out of thin air since you have clearly not reviewed that which I have.
Hint: perhaps the US is/was not an exception or exemption.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Correlating data from other countries with the U.S. is to the like of comparing apples to hammers. Controls would have to be introduced for civil rights and constitutional considerations which are limitless. Then I would have to wonder why this study was not made for public consumption, since this would have been an independant study of both the public and private realm on such a large scale. Thus, the embarrassment factor of one agency would not apply.
Care to keep going? It's quite amusing to see you comment about data/studies that apparently have not crossed your desks. Keep going, for your opinions are amusing. It is entertaining to see people comment about the validity and soundness of data/studies of which they admitted ignorance on multiple prior occassions. Can we call your opinion on this matter an informed one? Apparently not, for you admitted your lack of familiarity with such from early on in this discussion.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
If your study shows official misconduct of just one law enforcement officer, it does apply, both morally and criminally.
Wrong (and it's not my study). Those who are in positions to influence policy of the applicable entities/personnel and to take remedial action were generally well-informed, before and/or after. What "authorities" choose to do or not do is legally their own right-/wrong-doing. Of course, given that it is not an extremely rare occassion to find that law enforcement/security types are loathe to testify against the wrong-doings (negligent or non-negilgent) of their colleagues, most presumably faced little serious consequence.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
I have re-evaluated your posts and have come to the conclusion that the data (if it does exist) does not support your very general statement; nor; as it applys to the U.S.
It's amsuing how you arrive at a conclusion about data/studies which you have not reviewed and how you arrive at a conclusion about the applicability (or lack thereof) of such data/studies. Crystal balls may work in
The Wizard of Oz, but I doubt that they provide such insight as is necessary to make an informed conclusion.