FBI:Officers killed with firearms decreased 40 percent as gun sales soared...

[tkdguy]

in 2013.

Found in:


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governement/2014/11/24/FBI-Officers-Killed-With-Firear...

11/26/2014

This is a valuable report.

Read More

 

[Gunguy45]

I'm gonna cal BS on you. (Not because I'm making aspersions, but because you're assertion doesn't make sense).

First and foremost, because a TINY minority of FBI agents ever get anywhere near violent criminals. That's just not what they do. This is not 1930. And I'll remind you that even in the 30s in the heyday of Bonnie and Clyde, it was local and state authorities that dealt with the vast majority of really bad guys. The 1986 Florid shootout was an aberration, not a trend.

Officer-involved shootings, however ARE on the rise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/
It's a large number (considering the number of cops)and has risen significantly in the last couple of decades.

I'm sure the majority of these shootings were entirely justified. But look at the recent shooting of the 12-year-old kid with an Airsoft that was never pointed at police.

I've considered at ,many points in my life, a LE career. I have longtime friends that are LEOs, so I'm no cop basher. They do a hard, dirty job that's very physical and involves by it's nature a lot of fighting with unruly suspects. They get HURT on that job a TON. And THAT, should be the number that everyone looks at, IMO. You're a cop today and you're going to get into a serious physical confrontation with an unruly suspect, maybe every week or more.

The problem, IMO , is with the quickness to go to the gun. And with the media and the courts that have given unruly suspects th benefit of the doubt when officers have little choice but to beat the living crap out of a suspect or use the gun, and they chose the beating.

That's incredibly wrongheaded. These guys should be LAUDED for "You didn't shoot the guy even when you had 6 ways to Sunday to justify it."

Unfortunately, training conforms to legal norms. With our perverted system of "justice," the cop wh beats the crap out of a seriously resisting suspect is likely to get into trouble. If he just shoots the guy, He's likely to get off.

We need to seriously adjust training norms and legal norms. That's a damned hard legal and political process, but if you actually give a damn about police killings, that's the issue.

Also, I will point out that LEO is ranked something like 14th in dangerous professions in terms of death.

Next time you High five a LEO for being in a dangerous job (Which BTW I wouldn't have a problem with) remember that Roofers have a death rate WAY higher. When was the last time you thanked a roofer for his service?

 

[Slobray]

I'm gonna cal BS on you. (Not because I'm making aspersions, but because you're assertion doesn't make sense).

First and foremost, because a TINY minority of FBI agents ever get anywhere near violent criminals. That's just not what they do. This is not 1930. And I'll remind you that even in the 30s in the heyday of Bonnie and Clyde, it was local and state authorities that dealt with the vast majority of really bad guys. The 1986 Florid shootout was an aberration, not a trend.

Officer-involved shootings, however ARE on the rise.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ow-many-police-shootings-a-year-no-one-knows/
It's a large number (considering the number of cops)and has risen significantly in the last couple of decades.

I'm sure the majority of these shootings were entirely justified. But look at the recent shooting of the 12-year-old kid with an Airsoft that was never pointed at police.

I've considered at ,many points in my life, a LE career. I have longtime friends that are LEOs, so I'm no cop basher. They do a hard, dirty job that's very physical and involves by it's nature a lot of fighting with unruly suspects. They get HURT on that job a TON. And THAT, should be the number that everyone looks at, IMO. You're a cop today and you're going to get into a serious physical confrontation with an unruly suspect, maybe every week or more.

The problem, IMO , is with the quickness to go to the gun. And with the media and the courts that have given unruly suspects th benefit of the doubt when officers have little choice but to beat the living crap out of a suspect or use the gun, and they chose the beating.

That's incredibly wrongheaded. These guys should be LAUDED for "You didn't shoot the guy even when you had 6 ways to Sunday to justify it."

Unfortunately, training conforms to legal norms. With our perverted system of "justice," the cop wh beats the crap out of a seriously resisting suspect is likely to get into trouble. If he just shoots the guy, He's likely to get off.

We need to seriously adjust training norms and legal norms. That's a damned hard legal and political process, but if you actually give a damn about police killings, that's the issue.

Also, I will point out that LEO is ranked something like 14th in dangerous professions in terms of death.

Next time you High five a LEO for being in a dangerous job (Which BTW I wouldn't have a problem with) remember that Roofers have a death rate WAY higher. When was the last time you thanked a roofer for his service?

Gunguy,

I think you missed the whole point of the article. It talks about the FBI statistics of LE being "feloniously killed" by a firearm, not LE doing the killing.


I do agree with you for the most part though....


Ray