Originally Posted by Braddelauter
Is there a qualifier here? and until you responded to copwriter in the post previous to this present posting you had not.
"Yes" to the first question; and they've always been present, for that's the nature of good data-based research and conclusions and their applicability.
Originally Posted by Braddelauter
And then; No conflict in these two statements?
Then the broad issue;
And the broad statement encompassing all LE/Security types, since there are no qualifiers in this statement ;
You have not placed any qualifiers in this statement then it is broad and made on a broad scale.
I have and have not included any that has not been there. If you have left your statements intentionally vague then you have mischaracterized your own statements.
I would imagine that you cannot produce anyone else who has access to this study. Just as the study itself you can not substantiate your claim.
In an example that is more relevant, if I made the statement that my aim was good and you said it was not, both are opinion. If I wished to validate my claim by saying the data exist to show that my aim is good and you questioned the data exists, then it would be upon me to either accept your position or produce the data. I don't accept your statement that the data exists or for the reason that it would not be made for public consumption. Without supporting data you have an opinion.
My data is not in question yours is.
This is silly.
You are absolutely right, you did not provide any information on the data/studies or any study data.
If there are mischaracterizations in my statements it is based on your vague unsubstantiated claims.
If you are going to make a profound statement such as;
Then you should clarify it or support it, which you only partially clarified today.
A rational conclusion of these exchanges are that posted data shows a decline in U.S. Police Officer deaths of 150% and you have no evidence that most U.S. LE/Security types are dishonest.
Nearly all of your above claims have been refuted in prior posts. I refer you those.
... and your mischaracterizations (and then some) and misunderstandings apparently will remain. C'est la vie.
... and my statements still stand, with no change -- except in perhaps the understanding of those who are confused when there is a failure to be more careful in reading the words of others.