Wait.....isn't it illegal for "Teens" to beat a police officer? Even worse if female??

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

Your calculations are off. I pulled the numbers from several sources; including the FBI database, for 2025 and did my own calculations based on raw numbers. The stats I posted are correct for 2025. Historically is irrelevant in this case.


I had a feeling you were going to quote these numbers and am already ahead of you. There is no official database that tracks the number of civilian injuries due to excessive use of force. These numbers you posted are based only on complaints or where injury occurred whether excessive use of force was substantiated or not.

First, I appreciate our dialogue that isn't full of insults and etc. Nice!

Yes, there is no official database that tracks those numbers. If it were a police or police adjacent group grinding out the numbers, I'd be suspect. If it was a Defund The Cops group, you would be (justifiably) suspect.

So, agree to disagree? I'm cool with that. I don't have anything more to add to the conversation tbh.

 

[Robostyle]

Cops beat people,

People beat cops.

 

[Floyd Eye]

First, I appreciate our dialogue that isn't full of insults and etc. Nice!

Yes, there is no official database that tracks those numbers. If it were a police or police adjacent group grinding out the numbers, I'd be suspect. If it was a Defund The Cops group, you would be (justifiably) suspect.

So, agree to disagree? I'm cool with that. I don't have anything more to add to the conversation tbh.

Well, if someone is breaking into your house or assaulting a family member, whatever you do don’t call a cop.

 

[Findthetone1]

First, I appreciate our dialogue that isn't full of insults and etc. Nice!

Yes, there is no official database that tracks those numbers. If it were a police or police adjacent group grinding out the numbers, I'd be suspect. If it was a Defund The Cops group, you would be (justifiably) suspect.

So, agree to disagree? I'm cool with that. I don't have anything more to add to the conversation tbh.

Is there context to those stats? Or just "injuries"? HOW did the injuries occur? How many were due to failure to comply like running from police? Resisting arrest? A result of a vehicle crash from a pursuit? Some asshole that decided they were going to attack an officer but wound up on the losing end? Just plain bullshit lies? Anybody can find "stats" to confirm bias.

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

Is there context to those stats? Or just "injuries"? HOW did the injuries occur? How many were due to failure to comply like running from police? Resisting arrest? A result of a vehicle crash from a pursuit? Some asshole that decided they were going to attack an officer but wound up on the losing end? Just plain bullshit lies? Anybody can find "stats" to confirm bias.

Those are all legit questions which I can't answer. I did a little statistics and test methodology work at College. Numbers may not lie but you can make them bend the truth if you know how.

 

[Findthetone1]

Those are all legit questions which I can't answer. I did a little statistics and test methodology work at College. Numbers may not lie but you can make them bend the truth if you know how.

Then do you think it is responsible to post such figures as fact to further demonize law enforcement?

 

[MadAsAHatter]

Those are all legit questions which I can't answer. I did a little statistics and test methodology work at College. Numbers may not lie but you can make them bend the truth if you know how.

If you did some statistics work in college you should be familiar with this already. A short book everyone should read...

 

[JimmyGrim]

Assaulting police officers or anyone else should be taken seriously. A fair justice system should look at the evidence, identify the people responsible, and apply the law consistently. Hopefully those involved are held accountable if the allegations are proven.

 

[Uzi Nein Millimetah]

Assaulting police officers or anyone else should be taken seriously. A fair justice system should look at the evidence, identify the people responsible, and apply the law consistently. Hopefully those involved are held accountable if the allegations are proven.

When one has direct video evidence of the crime, there shouldn't be any excuse for the savages to avoid prison time.

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

Then do you think it is responsible to post such figures as fact to further demonize law enforcement?

An Epistemological question. I hesitate to answer. What is truth? Can we really know anything? (lol, I'm being evasive AND I'm trying to answer your question).

Simple answer now: Any set of stats can be questioned. You have to take things on faith sometimes.

(fuck, I hope I'm making sense here - I just woke up from a quick but DEEP nap after supper and I'm a bit foggy. It's been a long, long day already)

 

[Findthetone1]

An Epistemological question. I hesitate to answer. What is truth? Can we really know anything? (lol, I'm being evasive AND I'm trying to answer your question).

Simple answer now: Any set of stats can be questioned. You have to take things on faith sometimes.

(fuck, I hope I'm making sense here - I just woke up from a quick but DEEP nap after supper and I'm a bit foggy. It's been a long, long day already)

So no, you shouldn't portray half-truths as fact. Is that what you are trying to say? If you don't like law enforcement, I really don't care. That's your prerogative to do so. But posting some half-assed study stats as proof that you KNOW police officers consistently use excessive force on citizens is irresponsible and weak. Because as you said, you are working in "faith" not FACT. So in summary, you don't know jack shit.

 

[NoHassle]

All stats are biased cherry picking and not worth even looking at.

The only stats in today's world worth 'considering only' are those performed by a reputable and very experienced actuary and even then...be wary.

 

[Findthetone1]

All stats are biased cherry picking and not worth even looking at.

The only stats in today's world worth 'considering only' are those performed by a reputable and very experienced actuary and even then...be wary.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

So no, you shouldn't portray half-truths as fact. Is that what you are trying to say? If you don't like law enforcement, I really don't care. That's your prerogative to do so. But posting some half-assed study stats as proof that you KNOW police officers consistently use excessive force on citizens is irresponsible and weak. Because as you said, you are working in "faith" not FACT. So in summary, you don't know jack shit.

Well, I was trying to be polite. *shrug*

I'll tell you one thing my stats are as good as your stats. Both can be wrong/incomplete/poorly researched/ect. That's what I was trying to say. I'm NOT saying you're right and I was wrong.

But you chose to read it that way.

 

[Techdeth]

I need to hang out here more

 

[CRAIG4FSU]

“Open fire!!”

 

[MadAsAHatter]

I'll tell you one thing my stats are as good as your stats. Both can be wrong/incomplete/poorly researched/ect. That's what I was trying to say. I'm NOT saying you're right and I was wrong.

Everyone should take stats with a heap of salt and scrutinize them; especially when taken out of context of the full data set. However there is a glaring difference between the numbers you and I posted.

I'm fairly certain we looked up and saw the same sets of stats.

The stat I chose to post was what I though most honestly represented data sets available. If you noticed I purposely picked the numbers where deaths of officers were intentional. I could have very well chosen the number that included all deaths of officers caused by civilians which would have inflated the stat by including accidental deaths such as traffic collisions.

On the other hand you chose the 250,000 civilians injured by officers stat knowing this included all injuries; not just excessive use of force, and knowing there was no database that tracked excessive use of force. Meaning you knowingly chose a misleading stat to try to back up your original point that "cops beat people".

One is an honest attempt to best represent the data available in a truthful manner. The other is misrepresenting the available data and purposely misleading. Hopefully you can tell which is which.

 

[Findthetone1]

Well, I was trying to be polite. *shrug*

I'll tell you one thing my stats are as good as your stats. Both can be wrong/incomplete/poorly researched/ect. That's what I was trying to say. I'm NOT saying you're right and I was wrong.

But you chose to read it that way.

How about personal real-world experience? Ever form your opinions from those? Or do you just think what the MSM tells you to think?

 

[JamesTiberiusKirk]

How about personal real-world experience? Ever form your opinions from those? Or do you just think what the MSM tells you to think?

Oh, you're one of those "I believe one-off anecdotes more than legitimate scientific studies".

Well, I met a guy who said he's Christ. So there. I've met Christ. Can you top that - cuz it was personal AND real world.

 

[Findthetone1]

Oh, you're one of those "I believe one-off anecdotes more than legitimate scientific studies".

Well, I met a guy who said he's Christ. So there. I've met Christ. Can you top that - cuz it was personal AND real world.

OK. So, how many times have YOU personally witnessed or been a victim of excessive force from law enforcement? Is that more specific to keep your knickers out of a bind?