[Raider111]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

No, that's a search engine. Give us an actual source that backs up your assertion.

I can't find one.

You can assert anything and ask someone else to disprove it using Google. You made the claim, show your backup. I'm curious, so I did look it up. Here's what I found:


Then looking at fatalities, this has police down at 15th most dangerous: Dangerous Jobs: These Are the Deadliest Jobs in America

According to this nursing assistants and groundskeepers have a higher injury rate among municipal employees: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/arch...2_11192015.pdf

It shows that there are private sector occupations with significantly higher injury rates than police.

So essentially, yes, it's a dangerous job, but you are more likely to die in 14 other occupations and more likely to have an injury that takes you away from work in a handful.

So according to the research that you should have done yourself, Kid, it's not the most dangerous occupation. It doesn't have (nearly) the highest death rate, nor does it have the highest injury rate.

Gonna assume you've never had a gun pointed at you're head.
Stick to writing java.
If a trooper wants to run an errand to Stop and Shop in the cruiser so be it.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

It's disturbing how anti-police some of the regulars are on this forum. But reasons for that are another thread.

I'm not anti-police at all. I'm glad there out there and thankful for the job they do.

I also think that there are a number of bad cops who've been systemically protected when committing bad acts and that needs to be addressed.

Pretty ridiculous to think that I'm anti-police because I look at actual statistics before proclaiming they have the most dangerous job on Earth...

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by Raider111

Gonna assume you've never had a gun pointed at you're head.
Stick to writing java.
If a trooper wants to run an errand to Stop and Shop in the cruiser so be it.

Can you explain what one thing has to do with another?

I think cops taking their state provided vehicles to soccer practice and Stop and Shop is an unnecessary expense. Period.

I have no idea what that has to do with guns being pointed at my head.

Java? Not in 15 years. LOL.

[Raider111]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Can you explain what one thing has to do with another?

I think cops taking their state provided vehicles to soccer practice and Stop and Shop is an unnecessary expense. Period.

I have no idea what that has to do with guns being pointed at my head.

Java? Not in 15 years. LOL.

Well usually nursing assistants and groundskeepers dont face off with guns. Not sure why i needed to clarify that.
You got me good on the java thing though, hats off, its been about 15 years since i did that stuff

[SeaDoo342]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Can you explain what one thing has to do with another?

I think cops taking their state provided vehicles to soccer practice and Stop and Shop is an unnecessary expense. Period.

I have no idea what that has to do with guns being pointed at my head.

Java? Not in 15 years. LOL.

Don't dismiss the fact that giving officers access to vehicles off duty helps deter crime (ever see how perfectly people drive when a cop is around?), has officers on our streets with the ability/expectation to act off the state's dime, which means it's cheaper to give them their own vehicles instead of hiring a ton more cops (with that comes benefits/pensions etc). So it makes financial sense, really..

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by SeaDoo342

Don't dismiss the fact that giving officers access to vehicles off duty helps deter crime (ever see how perfectly people drive when a cop is around?), has officers on our streets with the ability/expectation to act off the state's dime, which means it's cheaper to give them their own vehicles instead of hiring a ton more cops (with that comes benefits/pensions etc). So it makes financial sense, really..

Except for the minor impact on traffic, the officers will still be in the community if they drove their own Toyota. This is certainly not the biggest waste of state tax dollars out there. However, I do think it's emblematic of how people in this state "pick and choose" to apply different standards to classes of state employee the prefer.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Except for the minor impact on traffic, the officers will still be in the community if they drove their own Toyota. This is certainly not the biggest waste of state tax dollars out there. However, I do think it's emblematic of how people in this state "pick and choose" to apply different standards to classes of state employee the prefer.

Except in their "Toyota", they can't go lights and sirens if a call comes in near their location. They can't slow traffic for a stranded motorist. Its likely they wouldn't act if a violent crime occurred because they wouldn't be carrying their service weapon (since their Toyota doesn't have a proper safe/mount).

Every single day, troopers respond to calls while off duty. By giving them vehicles, you have over 1,000 men and women on the road who aren't on duty, ready to act if they need to. It absolutely saves the state money, with the added benefit of public safety. Win, win.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Every single day, troopers respond to calls while off duty.

Except for resident troopers who are pretty much always on duty, again, I don't know how you would know this. You THINK you know, but, I'd like to see some data that says they do this EVERY single day and that it has a true impact.

I'm sure you'll direct me back to Google as you did before, but, I'll hope for the best.

[kidyankee764]

Originally Posted by DigitalMilford

Except for resident troopers who are pretty much always on duty, again, I don't know how you would know this. You THINK you know, but, I'd like to see some data that says they do this EVERY single day and that it has a true impact.

I'm sure you'll direct me back to Google as you did before, but, I'll hope for the best.

Because, I know. And I know firsthand.

How exactly can you deny that off duty troopers respond to calls? It's common knowledge and happens all the time. You're trying to back me into a corner by demanding numbers/studies etc. that [you know] don't exist publically unless you contact the state police and request them. There's a difference between "stats" and reality. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

[DigitalMilford]

Originally Posted by kidyankee764

Because, I know. And I know firsthand.

How exactly can you deny that off duty troopers respond to calls? It's common knowledge and happens all the time. You're trying to back me into a corner by demanding numbers/studies etc. that [you know] don't exist publically unless you contact the state police and request them. There's a difference between "stats" and reality. I'm sorry you can't understand that.

I'm not denying it. I am saying that without actual numbers I don't know.

Since you know, I assume you contacted the state police-- What did they provide for you?