More Americans shot & killed by law enforcement since 9/11 than killed in Iraq war

[chariot13]

Please note the asterisk on the FBI table, "The killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer in the line of duty."
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 14

Based on the statistics, ~400 felons out of ~300 million American's are killed by police each year. Conversely, on average, ~400 American Soldiers lost their lives while protecting the US in Iraq. Your inference that you are more likely to be killed by LEO than a terrorist is inherently flawed. For example, if you are a felon, and you have a tendency to threaten LEO, THEN you are more likely to go out in a blaze of glory with LEO. However, since the majority of American's aren't felons, your inference falls flat.

Your felon argument doesn't hold water. Because who has labeled the person a felon, is certainly more of a danger to Americans than the one that was labeled a felon.

 

[solv3nt]

Your felon argument doesn't hold water. Because who has labeled the person a felon, is certainly more of a danger to Americans than the one that was labeled a felon.

Let's play, assuming that the average American citizen believes that their life holds value, then they know that threatening a LEO is a good way to find yourself pushing up daisies. Based on the average American citizen not being a criminal, and placing value in their life, the average American citizen is not very likely to pull a gun on a LEO, thus rendering your argument that you are more likely to die from LEO than you are from a terrorist false.

However, if you are an individual that doesn't place value in life, and you have a tendency to threaten LEO, THEN, based parallel percentages, may die in a firefight with LEO.

Also, because there are two statistics that match, doesn't make one or the other causal. For example, I'm about to have a kid so I'm using this as an example, my wife says that based on statistics, you are MORE likely to have an unnatural birth if you use a Douala. I asked her how many of those unnatural, c-section, meds, induced labor, were planning on having a natural birth prior. Does the presence of a Douala aid in the birth process? I say show me more information. Just because you have two pieces of side by side statistics, doesn't mean that one causes the other to be true.

 

[chariot13]

Let's play, assuming that the average American citizen believes that their life holds value, then they know that threatening a LEO is a good way to find yourself pushing up daisies. Based on the average American citizen not being a criminal, and placing value in their life, the average American citizen is not very likely to pull a gun on a LEO, thus rendering your argument that you are more likely to die from LEO than you are from a terrorist false.
.

Again its just going to be me and you going back n forth lol so I'll explain something to you and leave it at that. There is no greater inherent value in any police officers life over any other Americans. Including ones they call 'felons'.

If peer pressure could come back as something else, it would come back as a rule, a law or political correctness. I have no doubt about it because then it could get away with anything.
Your label of "felon" is inherent to only the one who places the label out there. The one actually labeled has nothing to do with the name. A 'criminal' didn't name themselves a criminal anymore than an apple named itself an apple. That must be why the sinner is more than happy to take a bite out of crime lol, it helps them imagine that someone else must be wrong. You can't escape the fact that people in government make just as many mistakes in their decisions as anyone else, except the government exempts themselves from punishment. The law is always going to be on the side of those that make and enforce said laws, which makes itself prejudice towards its own self-righteousness. A great reason to ignore anything any government ever suggests.

Another thing is we are all born free, doesn't matter If you reside in Cambodia, America or planet Mars. When you are born, you are born free. That is until someone swoops you up and takes control of you. Hopefully that is a parent and not a government and hopefully that parent seeks for you to at some point (currently 18) to become free once again.

No matter who claims the soil under your feet, that you were born over. And no matter what country or government claims you as its citizen. You were born incapable of giving your consent. You could not and by the time you even could comprehend what 'consent' means, you would have already of gone through years of indoctrination via whatever education that is explicitly endorsed by that said government, which happens to now claim you as its 'own' citizen. As in it 'owns' you it believes. That government has laid claim upon you no differently than some doggy in a kennel. And a little history lesson on your last name which Im sure most are aware of. Your parents named you your first name, correct? But who do you think required a last name for not only you but your parents, their parents and so on. "Surnames became necessary when governments introduced personal taxation." You are right. I don't care about your rules, your labels or your laws. Nope it doesn't matter if you claim to come from a country other than where my feet are, or a country that you claim my feet stand upon. When you think another should live how you want them to live and your rules & laws apply to others above however they would like to live, then you are the one with no rules and in need of restraint.

 

[Burt Gummer]

The statistics are there to show you, that as an American you are more likely to be killed by law enforcement than any (other?) terrorist.

You are more likely to choke on a peanut than be harmed by one of those evil, browned skinned terrorists.

But thanks to a dumbing-down/brainwashing campaign via the government controlled mainstream media, people lay in bed worried about some 'terrorist' 7350 miles away. Sad. Fighting for Freedoms!

 

[U201492]

You are more likely to choke on a peanut than be harmed by one of those evil, browned skinned terrorists.

But thanks to a dumbing-down/brainwashing campaign via the government controlled mainstream media, people lay in bed worried about some 'terrorist' 7350 miles away. Sad. Fighting for Freedoms!

statically Sir you are correct. I spend more time worrying if I've got the firearm unloaded and the safety on (I keep all my "carry" firearms at threat condition III on the theory that if something bad happens, the time it takes me to draw, rack the slide into battery, safety off is time I can use to consider "Is today the day?") I know that some people like "threat condition I"- and thats fine for police officers and LEO's who are directly going into harms way. But for us retired civilians I simply crank up the "awareness level" to 11 and avoid problems- and if I see thugs I discretely and hidden go into threat condition 1. I do this for safety- I'm sure as firearm owners we fall into two categories: A)Those who have had an accidental discharge and B)Those who WILL have an accidental discharge.

 

[solv3nt]

Again its just going to be me and you going back n forth lol so I'll explain something to you and leave it at that.

My issue isn't whether or not someone qualifies as a felon, socially or legally, my point, is that you made an argument; as an American, you are more likely to be killed by a LEO than a terrorist. You base your premise on statistics, and you base your evidence on another group of statistics. However, what you haven't done, is proven that the two groups of statistics are related.

Yes, ~400 people per year die from cops. Yes, ~400 American's per year lost their life in Iraq. However, the two values aren't related, and this I charge you with proving since you were the one to make the argument.

So, ~400 people lost their lives to LEO per year, did they point a gun at a cop? If so, they just removed themselves from being the "average" American. If they are an above average guy, then the statistics don't apply to all ~300 million American's. Instead, they are part of a subset of above average American's that believe that it is prudent to threaten a LEO.

Second, ~400 American soldiers died in Iraq. As a soldier fighting in Iraq, they are predisposed to dying a death at the hands of a terrorist, and are no longer a portion of average American population.

Also, you changed your argument away from your statistics to an argument based on freedom. Have you seen Thank You for Smoking?

Side note, to claim that you are as likely to die at the hands of LEO as you are to die from a terrorist is a false argument, but you can say that the same percentage die each year.

 

[cookie]

Some of the shootings are really good. some are good because of stupid jurors and some are just plain homicide. The newer and kinder gestapo so to say. That being said there are some really great "I prefer the term" peace officers out there. I haven't seen any reason for the military to be in the middle east other than to profit the military industrial complex and the politicians who benefit from their lobby $$$$ cost "war without profit is a total waste of lives, materials, and resources"

 

[cookie]

The statistics are there to show you, that as an American you are more likely to be killed by law enforcement than any (other?) terrorist.

Define the term terrorist? I consider most government paid people with guns and possibly without guns to fit the description of terrorists and should be considered by the public terrorists.

 

[chariot13]

My issue isn't whether or not someone qualifies as a felon, socially or legally, my point, is that you made an argument; as an American, you are more likely to be killed by a LEO than a terrorist. You base your premise on statistics, and you base your evidence on another group of statistics. However, what you haven't done, is proven that the two groups of statistics are related.

Yes, ~400 people per year die from cops. Yes, ~400 American's per year lost their life in Iraq. However, the two values aren't related, and this I charge you with proving since you were the one to make the argument.

So, ~400 people lost their lives to LEO per year, did they point a gun at a cop? If so, they just removed themselves from being the "average" American. If they are an above average guy, then the statistics don't apply to all ~300 million American's. Instead, they are part of a subset of above average American's that believe that it is prudent to threaten a LEO.

Second, ~400 American soldiers died in Iraq. As a soldier fighting in Iraq, they are predisposed to dying a death at the hands of a terrorist, and are no longer a portion of average American population.

Also, you changed your argument away from your statistics to an argument based on freedom. Have you seen Thank You for Smoking?

Side note, to claim that you are as likely to die at the hands of LEO as you are to die from a terrorist is a false argument, but you can say that the same percentage die each year.

You're still arguing over 'why' something has happened. Questions are subjective in nature & relative to many various answers. You can always find an opposing viewpoint to any question. There is always going to be someone that flails around more force in trying to get their answer across to others but it doesn't make their answer any less subjective. Its not always wrong to point a gun at a police officer any more than it is towards another person, it has to do with threat to your own life or someone you love. You can talk what is lawful or whatever you want but its getting real close to where many people from washington and oregon are gonna have to make a choice, like people have in CT, CA, NY etc... Where you either ignore said gun law or comply. Making you a felon if caught and convicted. I will in all likely hood do my best to ignore and circumvent any law that attempts to infringe on my right to defend myself in whatever way and with whatever firearms or weapons I choose to use in doing so, past, present and future. And I really don't care who knows it. What is right is more important than what is lawful to me. I know that what is lawful is not always right but what is right will always remain right.

So back to you claiming it being wrong to point a gun at a police officer on its face. If some random police officer was pointing a gun at your loved one when you know your loved one is not a threat are you going to wait for them to kill that loved one? Take you or whoever it was that said they are about to have a newborn soon (which btw congratulations to whoever that was). If a police officer pointed a gun at them when you absolutely know in your heart that there is no way it is justified, are you going to wait for them to pull the trigger? Even if you, yourself was a felon, wouldn't you think it would be prudent and the right thing to do to disarm that police officer and point that gun back at them and use whatever reasonable force is necessary including shooting that motherbubblegumer to subdue that threat to your newborn? For a second it might not sound plausible but a look at history not only around the world but in this country and you can see that this has happened many times. Where a police officer has pointed a gun at someone that was not a threat and even fired their gun. Can look at more recent things for the millionth time like the 2 Asian ladies, Oscar, the guy shot by a bart officer in cali or others. I'm sure if you scour for sources you will come up with hundreds if not thousands just from the internet where if that person shot in those cases was my loved one I would have no problem shooting that cop before they shot my innocent loved one. On purpose or accident it doesn't matter, the threat needs to be stopped before it happens. And law enforcement make just as many deadly mistakes as felons. They just end up getting a free pass from the law. Like the other recent story on those Asian ladies lol

 

[solv3nt]

You're still arguing over 'why' something has happened.

You're still completely missing the point....