Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"The killing of Officer Michael Johnson was the department's first line-of-duty death in 14 years."
First San Jose cop killed in 14 years. Mean while about two to three people per year are murdered by the San Jose Police Department. So residents of San Jose are about 30 times more likely to be murdered by the police, then police officers are to be murdered by residents.
Sounds like a pretty damn safe job, to me. The cops are safer then the citizens of San Jose are.
You need to work on your math. Since 2001, San Jose PD have killed 10 people according to killedbypolice.net and the fatal encounters database, which means in those 14 years, 1 in 1397952 residents was killed every year by police officers. (14 * 998537/10)
There are 900 sworn officers in the San Jose PD. That means in the last 14 years, 1 in 6300 officers was killed every year. (14 * 900/2). San Jose police officers are 221 times more likely to be killed by a resident than a resident is to be killed by a police officer.
Last edited by marigolds6; 03-26-2015 at 05:29 PM..
Reason: More comprehensive stats found for last 14 years
You need to work on your math. Since 2001, San Jose PD have killed 10 people according to killedbypolice.net and the fatal encounters database, which means in those 14 years, 1 in 1397952 residents was killed every year by police officers. (14 * 998537/10)
There are 900 sworn officers in the San Jose PD. That means in the last 14 years, 1 in 6300 officers was killed every year. (14 * 900/2). San Jose police officers are 221 times more likely to be killed by a resident than a resident is to be killed by a police officer.
Don't confuse statistics manipulators with facts, they'll exceed their 15,000 rpm spin rate. Great post BTW.
"The killing of Officer Michael Johnson was the department's first line-of-duty death in 14 years."
First San Jose cop killed in 14 years. Mean while about two to three people per year are murdered by the San Jose Police Department. So residents of San Jose are about 30 times more likely to be murdered by the police, then police officers are to be murdered by residents.
Sounds like a pretty damn safe job, to me. The cops are safer then the citizens of San Jose are.
How sad that you think this way.
Do you put your life on the line every day for your job?
Cops don't even make a lot of money...they're lower middle class (other than the higher-ups, of course).
"The killing of Officer Michael Johnson was the department's first line-of-duty death in 14 years."
First San Jose cop killed in 14 years. Mean while about two to three people per year are murdered by the San Jose Police Department. So residents of San Jose are about 30 times more likely to be murdered by the police, then police officers are to be murdered by residents.
Sounds like a pretty damn safe job, to me. The cops are safer then the citizens of San Jose are.
I don't usually comment on posts like these, but I have to here. So aren't your statistics a little skewed?
In my calculation...a police officer's job is to put himself in the line of fire the whole time he/she is on the job. That is part of his/her job description.
A resident, other than a first responder (police, fire, etc.) is not required by job description to put their life on the line. Apples to apples, there is no comparison.
So your comparison is not a valid proposition in that a law abiding, normal resident of San Jose is not in a situation to be killed by police. Yet a police officer's job description requires him to always be in a preparatory position to be killed by a resident. Factoring in a 100% probability for police officers and a 0% probability for residents, I'd say your conjecture is flawed at best and unsubstantiated in reality.
Back up your supposition with long and thorough expert data and most people will take you seriously and agree with you. Other than that, you are entitled to voice your opinion, but be prepared for the backlash, similarly entitled, opinion of others.
I don't usually comment on posts like these, but I have to here. So aren't your statistics a little skewed?
In my calculation...a police officer's job is to put himself in the line of fire the whole time he/she is on the job. That is part of his/her job description.
A resident, other than a first responder (police, fire, etc.) is not required by job description to put their life on the line. Apples to apples, there is no comparison.
So your comparison is not a valid proposition in that a law abiding, normal resident of San Jose is not in a situation to be killed by police. Yet a police officer's job description requires him to always be in a preparatory position to be killed by a resident. Factoring in a 100% probability for police officers and a 0% probability for residents, I'd say your conjecture is flawed at best and unsubstantiated in reality.
Back up your supposition with long and thorough expert data and most people will take you seriously and agree with you. Other than that, you are entitled to voice your opinion, but be prepared for the backlash, similarly entitled, opinion of others.
Absolutely wrong and therefor so is your calculation. A police officers job is not to give their life up for anyone for any reason. At least do some DD before making such statements. They are not soldiers and take no oath to give up their lives for anyone. It is not in their job description nor in any requirement of their job to do so. Now you know. Go ahead, cite one police officers job description that requires the officer to give their life up for anyone. You won't find it. Please don't come back with your interpretation, post facts.
Yeah, don't point a cordless drill at a police officer.
Every one of those incidents could have been solved with non lethal-force. But the all great police gods have to shoot first, because they can't take a chance on even getting a little scratch on their finger.
It's really pretty simple.. don't pull weapons or what appear to be weapons on police and you won't get shot. These are all justifiable. Being a criminal is a dangerous line of work.
Yes, because there is no way a cop would EVER lie about whether or not someone pulled a gun on them or "reached for their waistband" or any of those things. They're just walking bastions of honest truth-telling.
You're almost five times more likely to get hurt at work if you're a trash man than if you're a cop, and we don't give them permission to shoot first, do we?
You're almost five times more likely to get hurt at work if you're a trash man than if you're a cop, and we don't give them permission to shoot first, do we?
That makes absolutely no sense. Can you explain please? Are people shooting at trash collectors???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
