2004 Line-Of-Duty Police Deaths

[livendive 8]

Quote

The police are here to protect and serve the public full time. With exceptions, when they die in the line of duty, it is usually no accident. This is what upsets the public.

Logging leads as the most dangerous occupation. Nobody hears about them.

Here's how I see it. Different jobs have different hazards. Some are relatively safe, some are relatively hazardous. Full-time skydivers face some quantifiable risk of injury/death and full-time accountants face a different probability. It seems to me that police work is, by comparison to some occupations, a relatively safe career choice.

I used to fish for a living (number two, right behind logging), and I currently draw a small percentage of my income by teaching skydiving. I'm also a member of the public, and police deaths don't typically upset me any more than any other occupational fatality.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[mr2mk1g 10]

For comparison; in the UK more officers are killed by cars than guns too.

Since the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act a grand total of 1 officer has been shot and killed on duty... that was by a visiting American in 2003.

[skycop 0]

It is more dangerous to be a farmer than a cop, statistically.
The one thing that makes police work unique is the human factor.
If you are a steel worker and crawl around on beams for a living you know the risks. Fall off the beam and you can get hurt or killed. The risks are obvious and identifiable.
The unique thing about police work is that the potential source of injury can conspire and plan to injure or kill you. Also potentially any situation can be harmful, even the most seemingly innocent ones.
This is what sets police work apart from most other occupations.
Do we walk the "line of death" everyday, the answer would be a resounding no. There are many more dangerous occupations out there but, rarely more with potential situations that can cause injury or death.IMHO

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[justdumi 0]

Quote

It is more dangerous to be a farmer than a cop, statistically.

Quote

You mean statistics show that more farmers died in the line of their jobs than police?

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[skycop 0]

Yes,
I took a class (police related) that compared death rates per capita in various occupations. I can't quote the source however.

My point was that police work is not as dangerous as many think BUT, the element and type of danger is very different when compared to other occupations.

If I remember correctly law enforcement was #12 in dangerous occupations. The most dangerous was commercial crab fishing. Firefighters finished higher than law enforcement in this particular study.

Can some stats geek help me out here?

I just did a quick google on "most dangerous jobs". The most dangerous went back and forth (depending on the year) between timber workers and fishing workers. The highest law enforcement I saw was 8th. Farming was consistently around 8th.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Since the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act a grand total of 1 officer has been shot and killed on duty...

Meanwhile, gun crime has doubled in England in the seven years since handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated.

The police may have been lucky with shooting deaths, but the citizens haven't.

News: London Telegraph

Furthermore, the crime of "assault on a constable" has risen dramatically, about 60%, during that same time period. (See attached chart).

Source: Home Office

Finally, you may have had just one officer shot to death in the six years since that law, but you also only had three officers shot to death in the six years preceding that law. A reduction from 3 to 1 over a six year period is not an indication of correlation. The number was so small to start with, that no valid conclusions can be inferred from this.

Source: Police Memorial

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

Since the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act a grand total of 1 officer has been shot and killed on duty...

Meanwhile, gun crime has doubled in England in the seven years since handguns and semi-auto long guns were confiscated.

The police may have been lucky with shooting deaths, but the citizens haven't.

News: London Telegraph

Furthermore, the crime of "assault on a constable" has risen dramatically, about 60%, during that same time period. (See attached chart).

Source: Home Office

Finally, you may have had just one officer shot to death in the six years since that law, but you also only had three officers shot to death in the six years preceding that law. A reduction from 3 to 1 over a six year period is not an indication of correlation. The number was so small to start with, that no valid conclusions can be inferred from this.

Source: Police Memorial

Well it's sad but in the UK the big controversy is whether or not to go with American style batons instead of the traditional truncheon. That's right folks, in the U.K we argue over how big a stick we give our policemen.

You can't really argue the guns as deterrent case in the U.K. there never has been a deterrent, an assailant has always had more chance of being struck by lightning in mid crime unless he's raiding a farmhouse in which case there's a chance he'll get a good oldfashioned 12 guage in his face.

As for assault on constable violence in the UK guns don't deter that either they never have, the beat police aren't armed with guns. In fact they have better nightsticks now and some have CS spray.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

You can't really argue the guns as deterrent case in the U.K.

I wasn't. I was arguing that banning guns does not reduce crime.

You got me on that track by trying to imply that since the 1997 gun ban, since only one officer has been shot and killed, that there was some kind of drastic reduction in crime. My response provided the full facts, which tells quite the opposite story as you tried to infer.

[christelsabine 1]

A reduction from 3 to 1 over a six year period is not an indication of correlation. The number was so small to start with, that no valid conclusions can be inferred from this.

***

That's a decrease of 2/3, Mr. Rich. I'd love to have this regarding my taxes

This "number (which) was so small to start with....." :

Could "you" in the US ever work with such small numbers in any gun crime, whatsoever?

?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[mr2mk1g 10]

It all depends on which statistics you care to look at. I have repeatedly stated on here that you cannot point to a rise in UK crime figures to show a gun ban has no effect. Firstly there is simply no way to show causation. Further to that, cherry picking the one or two statistics that support your agenda and ignoring all the other numerous ones which do not is far from giving the “full facts”.

If you want to provide the “full facts” you must give a whole load of statistics for the period you’re looking at and maybe people will be able to see the overall picture into which a rise in overall gun crime is set. Such as these:

Since just before we banned handguns overall crime has fallen by 39%.
Since just before we banned handguns vehicle crime has fallen by 51%
Since just before we banned handguns burglary has fallen by 43%.
Since just before we banned handguns theft has fallen by 36%.
Since just before we banned handguns overall violent crime has fallen by over 36%.
Since just before we banned handguns the risk of being involved in crime has fallen from 40% to 26% - the lowest level since our records began nearly 25 years ago.

All this is to be set against the backdrop of a major restructuring of the way in which police record violent crimes (NCRS). This change produced a 50% rise in recorded violent crime, whilst over the same period other unchanged reporting methods showed that there was in fact no rise in crimes actually being committed. This results in a distorted set of raw data from which some commentators may draw vastly incorrect conclusions. Where conclusions are drawn from such distorted data they either serve to exemplify the commentator’s ignorance of the subject or are indicative of a deliberate attempt to deceive.

Now I’m not saying that the handgun ban was the cause of any of the above. The issue is far more complicated than that. What I want to achieve is merely highlighting the fact that stating overall gun crime has doubled is simply cherry picking the one statistic you like out of a whole gamut of those which do not support your theory. The overall picture is a little different.

Once again; trends in statistics show little without evidence of causation. Those causes are far more complicated than one change and cannot be accounted for by a purely statistical analysis. Ultimately neither side of the argument is able to point to any one statistic without being confronted by a countermanding statistic disproving their theory.

All of the above figures may be found in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin: “Crime in England and Wales 2003/2004”, which is a Home Office study published in October 2004 drawing on figures from both police recorded crime and the British Crime Survey.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Now I’m not saying that the handgun ban was the cause of any of the above.

Correct. It is not.

Quote

...stating overall gun crime has doubled is simply cherry picking the one statistic you like out of a whole gamut of those which do not support your theory.

Negative. That is stating the one relevant crime statistic that has to do directly with gun ownership: gun crimes.

All those other things you listed are irrelevant. Guns don't have anything to do with crimes like auto theft. Trying to use that as an offsetting statistic for the ineffectiveness of a gun ban, is really grasping for straws.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Guns don't have anything to do with crimes like auto theft.

That's not what the US gun lobby would have people believe. Their favourite theory is that less guns mean more crime in general as criminals will be emboldened by the fewer people possessing firearms. The above statistics don’t bear out that popular theory.

Gun ownership or lack there of in this country has far less to do with gun crime than do many other issues. A lot of other things have happened since 1997.

The number of people shot on the streets can not be affected by changing the number of people who were formally permitted to keep a registered pistol locked in a gun cabinet in their home, separate from its ammunition.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Guns don't have anything to do with crimes like auto theft.

That's not what the US gun lobby would have people believe. Their favourite theory is that less guns mean more crime in general as criminals will be emboldened by the fewer people possessing firearms.

Since the British weren't allowed to keep guns in their cars to start with, or even to have them loaded and readily accessible in their own homes, gun ownership there had no bearing on car thefts. It's not just the ability to own them, but the availability to use them to deter crime.

Quote

Gun ownership or lack there of in this country has far less to do with gun crime than do many other issues. A lot of other things have happened since 1997.

Yes, it's not about guns. It's about culture. Culture includes things like economics, demographics, gangs, propensity to violence, and so on.

Quote

The number of people shot on the streets can not be affected by changing the number of people who were formally permitted to keep a registered pistol locked in a gun cabinet in their home, separate from its ammunition.

Correct again. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens has no affect upon the criminals.

"The number of firearms required to satisfy the crime market is minute, and these are supplied no matter what controls are instituted... There is no case, either in the history of this country or in the experience of other countries, in which controls can be shown to have restricted the flow of weapons to criminals or in any way reduced armed crime."
- Metropolitan Police Superintendent, Colin Greenwood, West Yorkshire, England, 1996.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

Correct again. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens has no affect upon the criminals.

I agree entirely. The number of legally held firearms which entered criminal circulation each year in the UK were statistically insignificant.

But then... that was not the main reason why parliament legislated in 1997. That had everything to do with removing firearms from the hands of normally law abiding citezens.

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

More police officers are killed by cars, then by guns!

Well, it's nice to see everyone chipping in to do their part.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

You can't really argue the guns as deterrent case in the U.K.

I wasn't. I was arguing that banning guns does not reduce crime.

That's silly, if almost nobody has a gun and you ban guns you're inevitably going to have almost no effect. Since you're talking about all sorts of crime how could anyone expect any evidence correlation. The machanics matter.

Quote

You got me on that track by trying to imply that since the 1997 gun ban, since only one officer has been shot and killed, that there was some kind of drastic reduction in crime. My response provided the full facts, which tells quite the opposite story as you tried to infer.

I think you've mistaken me for another poster.

I personally think that with so many weapons in the US banning guns inevitably leaves the arms in the hands of the criminal. You're faced with a dilema, but equally importantly there is a cultural tradition of self reliance and 'revolutionary' spirit tied to the constitutional right to bear arms. Americans wouldn't stand for a lot of stuff taken for granted in the U.K. and rightly so, but the same is true in reverse.

There are some very real cultural differences that aren't apparent to the casual observer.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Since just before we banned handguns overall violent crime has fallen by over 36%.

News story from England (excerpts):

4,000 shot in Britain in a year

Figures show war on gun crime failing

FOUR THOUSAND people have suffered shooting injuries in a single year as gun crime continues to rise across Britain....

The details of gun casualties come as government statistics issued this month are expected to show that other violent crime — mainly fuelled by binge drinking — has risen by 11% compared with the same period last year...

The gunshot injuries are revealed in a paper detailing crimes recorded by police in England and Wales. It is the most up-to-date analysis available of the type of weapons used and the scale of injury.

The figures will be of great concern to the government, which has tried to convince the public it is winning the battle on gun crime. The 2003-04 figures are also expected to see the trend continue with even more injuries being caused by guns.

Gun crime has more than doubled since Labour came to power in 1997. (My note: This is the same same year the gun confiscation was done.)

Experts say the number of people admitted to hospital with gunshot injuries is much higher than those released by the government because many hospitals do not record the treatment of gunshot wounds, or the method of collecting data differs between hospitals.

Source: Times Online

Not only has the gun confiscation failed to curb a rise in gun crime, but it has also failed to curb the rise in violent crime in general. Your characterization of dropping violent crime in England is incorrect.

[ScottishJohn 25]

Quote

4,000 shot in Britain in a year

I wonder how many people would have been shot if there were similer gun laws to the US .

What do you think , Higher or Lower.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers

[mr2mk1g 10]

Yup - those are the stats. Gun crime about doubled between 97 and 2001; since then it has remained stable. Meanwhile overall violent crime has fallen by 36% over the same period. Those figures are correct.

However, the article you quote misstates that violent crime has risen by 11% since last year. This is incorrect. Reported crime increased by 12% but this is attributed to NCRS and other changes. The appropriate figure is provided by the BCS as being a fall in violent crime of 3% between 2002/3 and 2003/4. Apparently not even The Times is immune to reporting errors.

Quote

Not only has the gun confiscation failed to curb a rise in gun crime, but it has also failed to curb the rise in violent crime in general. Your characterization of dropping violent crime in England is incorrect.

I’m not trying to characterize anything. I’m simply providing the actual statistics from the document your Times article misquotes. Those statistics are not mine – they are the official statistics collected by the BCS and Police and collated by the Home Office. If you feel that a statistic showing a 36% fall in violent crime since 1995 characterizes a fall in violent crime, that characterization can hardly be attributed to me.

As I indicated above; I don't think any of the above statistics have much to do with the 97 firearms legislation. They are merely linked temporally. The 97 act was not designed to have a great affect on criminals who possess guns. It was not even designed to have much of an effect on overall criminal activity.

As I keep saying, the reason why Parliament legislated in 97 was to tackle the ownership of firearms by private individuals who were ordinarily law abiding citizens. That was the target of the legislation. That target was largely achieved.

The fact that criminals still have firearms is no surprise – the 97 legislation had no effect and moreover was not intended to have much of an effect on that section of the community. That people believe it was is down to newspaper nonsense, pressure group propaganda and political spin for partisan gain.