You suggest that data exists that show that a large portion of law enforcement officers are dishonest. Since the the number of law enforcement agencies are somewhere near 18,000 and that the number of law enforcement officers in the U.S. are more than 500,000, the logistics of accomplishing this study is mindboggling. Too many different agencies and too many variables. On a smaller scale I could see, but then you wouldn't be able to use this statement;

This data would be impossible to obtain to make the "law enforcement/security types were not always or even often honest" statement on such a broad scale. Maybe if you made that statement of Agency X, but then the "data" would still be made available to the public.

This is more data that is just wrong, they are declining. 1973-134, 1975-129, 1980-104, 1985-78, 1990-66, 1995-74 and 2000-51. From 1973 to 2000 the data shows a decrease of more than 150%.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/leok.htm


and then in your next post in response to gofast,


[/QUOTE]

I don't need a hint as I am aware that I made the statement.

The connection here is that maybe you had viewed your data on this television program, maybe not. I still don't believe there is a data set that supports your statement, except in a very limited capacity.





In addition, witholding information of criminal misconduct could be considered Obstruction of Justice, making you criminally liable. morally, just knowing this information and not passing it to the proper authorities makes you just as dishonest.

I guess I will just have to wait for the "news to break".

I did not suggest as you said. Try putting words in your own mouth and not mine.

It wasn't made on such a broad scale; you read it as being on a broad scale. However, I suspect that the level of criminality and dishonesty is no lower amongst law enforcement/security types than the general population.

Wrong. The data I relied upon is right; and it's not not confined to just law enforcement officers in the US.

Thank you for the link, but you read what I posted incorrectly.


The connection is non-existent, for I've never even heard of what you referred to prior to your mentioning such. I don't watch much TV myself, and if I do, it's certainly not local news in the "northeast".

Actually the data and studies I reviewed are not of "a very limited capacity", in the sense you are referring to; it applied to more than just the US and to more than just law enforcement.

Not applicable.

The data I'm talking about is not confined to the US and not confined to just American local/state/federal law enforcement. Now re-evaluate what I posted from the beginning and get back to me again.

Relax GU, take a holiday.

I'm quite relaxed, and enjoying Milwaukee's best.

Trying to make your OMNI-quota?

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 appreciate that this is your opinion.


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.


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.


If your study shows official misconduct of just one law enforcement officer, it does apply, both morally and criminally.

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.

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.


Yes... but a reasonably informed one.

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.

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.

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.

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 think you might find that it's not all that difficult to find LE officers that will testify against another officer that has acted badly, although this can be a regional issue. Cop culture varies quite a bit from one part of the country to another. In the Northeast, cops tend to be very protective of one another and an officer that comes forward to report misconduct or grave incompetence is likely to be ostracized. However, in the Northwest, the standard leans more towards self-policing (no pun intended). Take a look at the ethics bulletins published monthly by the Oregon Department of Public Safety Standards and Training. DPSST de-certifies a number of officers nearly every month, and then publishes their reasons for doing so. This sends a clear message that misconduct will not be tolerated. If an officer is de-certified, he can never again work as a law enforcement or corrections officer in that state, and it is nearly impossible for him to obtain similar work elsewhere.

It's difficult to change the nature of a subculture such as that of police, but I think it is happening slowly. Even now, I don't believe that the police culture is as rigidly self-protective as you portray it to be.

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.

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.




Based on...I remember now a secret study that you are the only one that has access.



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.


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.


If it is not yours then post it. Again thanks for your opinion.


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.

There are limits in my prior statements by which I continue to stand. Just because you may fail to properly identify such "limitations" (read: "qualifyers") in those statements does not mean such is not already present in those very statements of mine. You continue to make unsubstantiated claims about my statements without meaningfully (i.e., in context) quoting any post of mine in this thread to add weight to your accusations. It's reasonably amusing -- and a bit sad too -- that mischaracterization is the retort that must be applied against me (since all else has hitherto failed).

This is getting to be typical. Your first sentence is a mischaracterization that is wholly incorrect. In regards to the second sentence above: if you are quite confused, I cannot help you with that state of being.

You claim I made a statement that I did not make. And upon your being asked to clearly indicate where I said that which you claim I said, you then fail to quote my words properly and in context. Perhaps you are the cause of your own confusion? (I know I have been on occassion.) As you are confused, it is understandable that you have failed to prove your allegations about my statements.

I really suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there.

As I said before: "I suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there."

Let me help make the implicit explicit and the explicit more explicit )especially for those who have missed certain items): I was not the only one that had access to the data/studies mentioned.

Did I ever claim otherwise? No. The thin air is clearly not here; apparently it's somewhere else. As I said above: "I suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there."

The following exchange is even more amusing:

That is incorrect; you have (intentionally or unintentionally) mischaracterized your own statement.

I can only call your statement a manifestation of ill-informed opinion; after all what else can one call your comments about data/studies which you have admitted to not having had in your possession? Only ill-informed opinion.

Let me provide you yet another example of why your statement can be classified as such:

If someone asked me to comment about your aim with a gun and I had never reviewed your shooting, how would most reasonable people characterize my statement about your being a great shot in the absence of my reviewing actual data points/studies related to your shooting? Most reasonable people would accuractely characeterize such as "ill-informed opinion". And they would be right.

It's not "my study" to be disseminated; however, thank you for trying to educate me, regardless of the merits. I do understand a bit (and then some) about valid studies (and, more importantly, invalid ones). If you care to conduct your own research and the findings are yours and only yours, feel free to share. If extensive enough, I may even volunteer to get it reviewed.

I don't believe in violating my agreements and understandings.

Again, thanks for your fine example of a non-sequitur: "if it is not yours then post it." If you cashed your relative's personal check at their bank and the teller gave you far more money than you had prior expectations of receiving, would you just run off and say "the money's not mine, so I'll spend it however I like"? Is that the kind of thinking you are advocating? I hope not.

I did not, to my knoweldge, provide you with any information on the data/studies I previously mentioned in this thread. And yet you still feel qualified to dismiss data/studies you have admittedly not reviewed. That crystal ball must be quite valuable.

This is getting to be typical. As I'll indicate below, your first sentence is almost wholly incorrect and certainly a gross mischaracterization; however, that is not unexpected.

Did I ever claim that which you apparently think I have? No.

Yet again, "you claim I made a statement that I did not make. And upon your being asked to clearly indicate where I said that which you claim I said, you then fail to quote my words properly and in context." It is understandable that you have failed to prove your allegations about my statements, for you are apparently reading things that have never come across your eyes.

"I suggest reading what I wrote far more closely and accurately before mischaracterizing my words in your own mind; before reading things that are not there; and before missing things that are there."

I agree. The unhealthy culture of rigid "self-protection" does seem to have diminished in parts; hopefully that trend, where it exists, will continue and become more universal.

I never wrote that most LE/security types in the US were dishonest. Why didn't I? Because I have no evidence that indicates such. My personal experience is that most LE/security types, especially in the US, wish to do the right thing -- especially when the "costs" of doing right are low while the "costs" of doing wrong are high, highly publicized and frequently realized. Unfortunately such conditions are not always present.

Is there a qualifier here? and until you responded to copwriter in the post previous to this present posting you had not.


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.

"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.

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.

Prove it. The one or two word qualifier wouldn't be to hard to type.



Never has this happened. You have never refuted anything other than saying "read my posts". I did and you make very vague, contridicting and general statements, which I have proven. This is the difference between us, I have evidence and you do not.


.

I understand completely, you have an opinion that you would like to support with fact, but are unable to do so.

I have shown on numerous times your vague, general and contradicting statements, which is truly sad. I would respect your opinion, I may not have agreed with it but I would respect it as yours. To say you have a study that obviously doesn't exist to try to support your statement is very disheartening. Many people make statements like this, they say they have evidence, but when it comes down to what is real and what is not, they can't produce it. LEO's deal with this behavior frequently. It is okay we understand why you would do this.



You have made a statement that is insulting, and when questioned you state that data supports it, but are unable to produce it. What a long road to get to your "ill-informed" opinion.

I have to agree with gofast, this is becoming tiresome. The bottomline is you made an unsubstantiated claim = "ill-informed" opinion, just like the above, what else needs to be said.

I'll keep this simple (since my prior statements are still applicable) and refer the following to you:

Although I have proven you wrong many times, and you claim (with no merit, no evidence, hhmmm...a re-occurring theme) that you have refuted nearly everything I have said, you will not be able to refute this;

Your claims, statements are unequivocally unsubstantiated. You have provided no evidence that even remotely supports your position. Actually you have provided no evidence at all. It still stands alone, your statements are baseless opinions, nothing more.

More vague responses will not deliver you from this, it is the truth, and you cannot refute the truth.

The only possible way you could refute this is to provide evidence, which we both know is just like the Wizard of Oz, it just doesn't exist.