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.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
You make the statement, then say you didn't, then you say the statement isn't broad and then you reaffirm the statement is broad. Quite confusing.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
Yes... but a reasonably informed one.
Based on...I remember now a secret study that you are the only one that has access.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
Police officer deaths in the U.S. have been declining since 1975. This is fact. No, your secret study does not apply to the U.S. No thin air here.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
Yes, you can call it informed and it is not opinion. A valid study can not be completed without controls. Post your study and if it is done correctly and comes to the conclusion you suggest, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
If it is not yours then post it. Again thanks for your opinion.
Originally Posted by GUWonder
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.
I have arrived on this conclusion based on the information you have provided. Your statements are without merit since there is no data to substantiate your claim, other than that police officer deaths have risen in relation to the U.S., which is just wrong, based on facts. I don't need a crystal ball to see this is just your opinion.
