Cops Killed Per Year By President

[flacaltenn]

so you were saying, Donald?

Partisan hacks being partisan hacks, who'd a thunk. Try using the same numbers and same time frame used in the speech, then prove it wrong. WAPO can't do that because he was using their numbers. I don't like dump one bit, I like regressive liars even less.

As usual -- the fighting between USMB gangs begins without ANY attention on what a Twitter "fact" actually means. OR if it real. OR if there aren't MORE important facts like..

2016

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
9/11 related illness: 1
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 9
Drowned: 1
Gunfire: 31
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

By Month
January: 5
February: 10
March: 16
April: 2
May: 7
June: 10
July: 18

SOOOO.. What do you conclude? Wanna count deaths from Animals? Heart Attacks? How come if Obama's "score" is 62 -- That there have been 68 already this year and it's only fucking July?

And that was just the FIRST link I pulled up to try and understand this Twit nonsense. Wanna bet the numbers are fudged in some half lying way? Jillian HATES liars. Would she get appalled if won the bet?

From what I understand, WAPO use numbers from Jul 2015 to Jul 2016 compared to the same period a year earlier. So to relevant you'd have to use the same period.

Then -- those partial year tallies are not as statistically valid as "averages" over longer periods of time. That's just the reality of statistics.

Just as comparing your risk of dying from lightning to being killed by a terrorist is a stupid and meaningless comparison -- a lot of nuance is missed by tossing THESE numbers around.

What matters is the motivation and inspiration for the killings. Like the guy running out into the street after Baltimore and shooting a police officer sitting in his car at a traffic light. THAT is the inspired killing that shouldn't be happening.

 

[TheOldSchool]

2016 is on pace for about 140 police deaths. Less than the Bush, Clinton and Reagan averages. Take away accidental death, illness, and other non-duty related deaths and the number will probably be about the 62 in the OP.

Police deaths already exclude those things. Deaths are only added to this total if they have their badge on them, and are conducting police-related work. Stop making things up to protect your failure president.

Yeah the 11 or 12 who died this year from illnesses that were caused from service on 9/11 were on duty when they died.

Fact is if you include total deaths, they are still down under Obama. Maybe you should consider not making things up.

2016
I happen to have 68 right here, and illness isn't included among them. Only one even died from "9/11-related illness". They're also specified "Line of duty deaths".

Fine look at the totals then. Still down under Obama.

Certainly ended the trend, though, didn't he? You also seem pretty certain 4+ more cops won't be killed by the time this failure is out of office. Personally, I hope not, but considering how this race-baiting coward has been encouraging criminals, I find it highly unlikely he won't reverse the trend.

5 months left in the year, and the total is at 68 so far. There will have to be quite the murder spree for the trend to be "reversed" and get up into the 200's or so.

 

[OKTexas]

so you were saying, Donald?

Partisan hacks being partisan hacks, who'd a thunk. Try using the same numbers and same time frame used in the speech, then prove it wrong. WAPO can't do that because he was using their numbers. I don't like dump one bit, I like regressive liars even less.

As usual -- the fighting between USMB gangs begins without ANY attention on what a Twitter "fact" actually means. OR if it real. OR if there aren't MORE important facts like..

2016

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
9/11 related illness: 1
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 9
Drowned: 1
Gunfire: 31
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

By Month
January: 5
February: 10
March: 16
April: 2
May: 7
June: 10
July: 18

SOOOO.. What do you conclude? Wanna count deaths from Animals? Heart Attacks? How come if Obama's "score" is 62 -- That there have been 68 already this year and it's only fucking July?

And that was just the FIRST link I pulled up to try and understand this Twit nonsense. Wanna bet the numbers are fudged in some half lying way? Jillian HATES liars. Would she get appalled if won the bet?

From what I understand, WAPO use numbers from Jul 2015 to Jul 2016 compared to the same period a year earlier. So to relevant you'd have to use the same period.

Then -- those partial year tallies are not as statistically valid as "averages" over longer periods of time. That's just the reality of statistics.

Just as comparing your risk of dying from lightning to being killed by a terrorist is a stupid and meaningless comparison -- a lot of nuance is missed by tossing THESE numbers around.

What matters is the motivation and inspiration for the killings. Like the guy running out into the street after Baltimore and shooting a police officer sitting in his car at a traffic light. THAT is the inspired killing that shouldn't be happening.

That wasn't the point, dump used numbers published by WAPO recently simply as a demonstration of how things have changed. What's really pathetic is WAPO came out and called him a liar for using THEIR numbers. Then all the regressives on this board jumped right on WAPOs bandwagon without checking where dump got his information to begin with. It's all pretty funny and fully demonstrates the regressive hive mentality.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

First of all, what evidence do you have that I am racist?

the crimes being committed by Black Lies Matter, then wouldn't their best strategy, to help defeat Trump, be to start behaving like civilized humans rather than like feral subhuman beasts, t

Feral subhuman beasts? There's a start for proving you are a racist. No big deal but to claim otherwise is too funny.

That description has nothing to do with race. It's all about behavior. Unless you're going to claim that it is inherent to those of a certain race to behave in the manner that I so describe, in which case, it is you that is being racist.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police deaths already exclude those things. Deaths are only added to this total if they have their badge on them, and are conducting police-related work. Stop making things up to protect your failure president.

Yeah the 11 or 12 who died this year from illnesses that were caused from service on 9/11 were on duty when they died.

Fact is if you include total deaths, they are still down under Obama. Maybe you should consider not making things up.

2016
I happen to have 68 right here, and illness isn't included among them. Only one even died from "9/11-related illness". They're also specified "Line of duty deaths".

Fine look at the totals then. Still down under Obama.

Certainly ended the trend, though, didn't he? You also seem pretty certain 4+ more cops won't be killed by the time this failure is out of office. Personally, I hope not, but considering how this race-baiting coward has been encouraging criminals, I find it highly unlikely he won't reverse the trend.

5 months left in the year, and the total is at 68 so far. There will have to be quite the murder spree for the trend to be "reversed" and get up into the 200's or so.

I'm not expecting it to beat, say, the first total listed... just expecting it to beat at least Bush's total. That would be enough to reverse the trend.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Donald is just using the riots and the highway blocking these past few years for political points.

of course.

Really?

I've not been under the impression that the Black Lies Matter bunch were on Mr. Trump's side.

So really, all this violence, all this destruction, all this other trouble that these feral subhuman are perpetrating; they're doing it to support Mr. Trump?

No, Racist. Trump is exploiting these recent tragedies for his own purpose and perpetuating the false reality that crime is up.

Since crime has steadily gone down why do we need more firearms laws? Pray tell?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The nice thing about truth is it indeed is black or white....and you f•••tard liberals fail every time when you try to make it gray...

See also: moral relativism

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yeah the 11 or 12 who died this year from illnesses that were caused from service on 9/11 were on duty when they died.

Fact is if you include total deaths, they are still down under Obama. Maybe you should consider not making things up.

2016
I happen to have 68 right here, and illness isn't included among them. Only one even died from "9/11-related illness". They're also specified "Line of duty deaths".

Fine look at the totals then. Still down under Obama.

Certainly ended the trend, though, didn't he? You also seem pretty certain 4+ more cops won't be killed by the time this failure is out of office. Personally, I hope not, but considering how this race-baiting coward has been encouraging criminals, I find it highly unlikely he won't reverse the trend.

5 months left in the year, and the total is at 68 so far. There will have to be quite the murder spree for the trend to be "reversed" and get up into the 200's or so.

I'm not expecting it to beat, say, the first total listed... just expecting it to beat at least Bush's total. That would be enough to reverse the trend.

Considering it's not even close, you'll probably be disappointed. If I remember right, Dubya the disaster had at least 2 200+ years.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Republicans are for good people and Democrats for evil. So it's normal for Republicans to have sympathy when one of ours gets gunned down.

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

How do you mean "right"?

"Right" as in right/left?

Or as in right/wrong?

A distinction without a difference.

I think it is becoming increasingly obvious, by now, that the distinction between right and “left” is exactly the same thing as the distinction between right and wrong. The only difference is that when we are talking politics, we use the word “left” to describe exactly the same thing that, in any other context, we would describe as wrong. We should stop using the word “left”, and call it what it really is.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

True, but it goes a little further than that.

Democrats (like Republicans) seek to expand their voting base. One of their main support bases are victims: victims of big pharma, victims of big oil, victims of employers, victims of the rich, everybody is a victim of something.

To expand their base of victims, they simply need more of them.

If Hillary gets into office and appoints a bunch of Commie leftists to the Supreme Court, they can rule that we really don't have a constitutional right to own or carry firearms.

Cities and states can then make guns virtually illegal, and as you already pointed out, only the criminals would have guns.

Nobody can defend themselves against a person with a gun, and that makes us all victims. So how would we then be able to defend ourselves against Big Crime? Bigger government, just like what's needed to fight all those other Big intruders in our life.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns, Democrats care that we don't need them to protect ourselves.

 

[Theowl32]

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

True, but it goes a little further than that.

Democrats (like Republicans) seek to expand their voting base. One of their main support bases are victims: victims of big pharma, victims of big oil, victims of employers, victims of the rich, everybody is a victim of something.

To expand their base of victims, they simply need more of them.

If Hillary gets into office and appoints a bunch of Commie leftists to the Supreme Court, they can rule that we really don't have a constitutional right to own or carry firearms.

Cities and states can then make guns virtually illegal, and as you already pointed out, only the criminals would have guns.

Nobody can defend themselves against a person with a gun, and that makes us all victims. So how would we then be able to defend ourselves against Big Crime? Bigger government, just like what's needed to fight all those other Big intruders in our life.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns, Democrats care that we don't need them to protect ourselves.

To me, victimology is their only strategy. Study it. That is what ALL of their rhetoric is.

It is all dividing and conquering.

That is all they know.

 

[jillian]

so you were saying, Donald?

Partisan hacks being partisan hacks, who'd a thunk. Try using the same numbers and same time frame used in the speech, then prove it wrong. WAPO can't do that because he was using their numbers. I don't like dump one bit, I like regressive liars even less.

As usual -- the fighting between USMB gangs begins without ANY attention on what a Twitter "fact" actually means. OR if it real. OR if there aren't MORE important facts like..

2016

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
9/11 related illness: 1
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 9
Drowned: 1
Gunfire: 31
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

By Month
January: 5
February: 10
March: 16
April: 2
May: 7
June: 10
July: 18

SOOOO.. What do you conclude? Wanna count deaths from Animals? Heart Attacks? How come if Obama's "score" is 62 -- That there have been 68 already this year and it's only fucking July?

And that was just the FIRST link I pulled up to try and understand this Twit nonsense. Wanna bet the numbers are fudged in some half lying way? Jillian HATES liars. Would she get appalled if won the bet?

From what I understand, WAPO use numbers from Jul 2015 to Jul 2016 compared to the same period a year earlier. So to relevant you'd have to use the same period.

Then -- those partial year tallies are not as statistically valid as "averages" over longer periods of time. That's just the reality of statistics.

Just as comparing your risk of dying from lightning to being killed by a terrorist is a stupid and meaningless comparison -- a lot of nuance is missed by tossing THESE numbers around.

What matters is the motivation and inspiration for the killings. Like the guy running out into the street after Baltimore and shooting a police officer sitting in his car at a traffic light. THAT is the inspired killing that shouldn't be happening.

You're correct. Except we have gone through other periods of volatility where cops were killed as a result of hostility from the general public. By the same token one has to ask about the reasons for the excessive ease with which cops shoot unarmed black men.

 

[jillian]

2016 is on pace for about 140 police deaths. Less than the Bush, Clinton and Reagan averages. Take away accidental death, illness, and other non-duty related deaths and the number will probably be about the 62 in the OP.

Police deaths already exclude those things. Deaths are only added to this total if they have their badge on them, and are conducting police-related work. Stop making things up to protect your failure president.

Yeah the 11 or 12 who died this year from illnesses that were caused from service on 9/11 were on duty when they died.

Fact is if you include total deaths, they are still down under Obama. Maybe you should consider not making things up.

2016
I happen to have 68 right here, and illness isn't included among them. Only one even died from "9/11-related illness". They're also specified "Line of duty deaths".

Fine look at the totals then. Still down under Obama.

Certainly ended the trend, though, didn't he? You also seem pretty certain 4+ more cops won't be killed by the time this failure is out of office. Personally, I hope not, but considering how this race-baiting coward has been encouraging criminals, I find it highly unlikely he won't reverse the trend.

So stop race-baiting

 

[OKTexas]

so you were saying, Donald?

Partisan hacks being partisan hacks, who'd a thunk. Try using the same numbers and same time frame used in the speech, then prove it wrong. WAPO can't do that because he was using their numbers. I don't like dump one bit, I like regressive liars even less.

As usual -- the fighting between USMB gangs begins without ANY attention on what a Twitter "fact" actually means. OR if it real. OR if there aren't MORE important facts like..

2016

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
9/11 related illness: 1
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 9
Drowned: 1
Gunfire: 31
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

By Month
January: 5
February: 10
March: 16
April: 2
May: 7
June: 10
July: 18

SOOOO.. What do you conclude? Wanna count deaths from Animals? Heart Attacks? How come if Obama's "score" is 62 -- That there have been 68 already this year and it's only fucking July?

And that was just the FIRST link I pulled up to try and understand this Twit nonsense. Wanna bet the numbers are fudged in some half lying way? Jillian HATES liars. Would she get appalled if won the bet?

From what I understand, WAPO use numbers from Jul 2015 to Jul 2016 compared to the same period a year earlier. So to relevant you'd have to use the same period.

Then -- those partial year tallies are not as statistically valid as "averages" over longer periods of time. That's just the reality of statistics.

Just as comparing your risk of dying from lightning to being killed by a terrorist is a stupid and meaningless comparison -- a lot of nuance is missed by tossing THESE numbers around.

What matters is the motivation and inspiration for the killings. Like the guy running out into the street after Baltimore and shooting a police officer sitting in his car at a traffic light. THAT is the inspired killing that shouldn't be happening.

You're correct. Except we have gone through other periods of volatility where cops were killed as a result of hostility from the general public. By the same token one has to ask about the reasons for the excessive ease with which cops shoot unarmed black men.

Blacks only account for 26% of police killings, yet they are 11 times more likely to be involved in criminal activity, your claim of excess is bullshit.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Police deaths already exclude those things. Deaths are only added to this total if they have their badge on them, and are conducting police-related work. Stop making things up to protect your failure president.

Yeah the 11 or 12 who died this year from illnesses that were caused from service on 9/11 were on duty when they died.

Fact is if you include total deaths, they are still down under Obama. Maybe you should consider not making things up.

2016
I happen to have 68 right here, and illness isn't included among them. Only one even died from "9/11-related illness". They're also specified "Line of duty deaths".

Fine look at the totals then. Still down under Obama.

Certainly ended the trend, though, didn't he? You also seem pretty certain 4+ more cops won't be killed by the time this failure is out of office. Personally, I hope not, but considering how this race-baiting coward has been encouraging criminals, I find it highly unlikely he won't reverse the trend.

So stop race-baiting

I'm not, that's a Liberal's job. I suppose you'll be getting back to work in your next post?

 

[yiostheoy]

so you were saying, Donald?

Partisan hacks being partisan hacks, who'd a thunk. Try using the same numbers and same time frame used in the speech, then prove it wrong. WAPO can't do that because he was using their numbers. I don't like dump one bit, I like regressive liars even less.

As usual -- the fighting between USMB gangs begins without ANY attention on what a Twitter "fact" actually means. OR if it real. OR if there aren't MORE important facts like..

2016

Line of Duty Deaths: 68
9/11 related illness: 1
Aircraft accident: 1
Animal related: 1
Assault: 2
Automobile accident: 9
Drowned: 1
Gunfire: 31
Gunfire (Accidental): 1
Heart attack: 4
Motorcycle accident: 3
Struck by vehicle: 2
Vehicle pursuit: 3
Vehicular assault: 9

By Month
January: 5
February: 10
March: 16
April: 2
May: 7
June: 10
July: 18

SOOOO.. What do you conclude? Wanna count deaths from Animals? Heart Attacks? How come if Obama's "score" is 62 -- That there have been 68 already this year and it's only fucking July?

And that was just the FIRST link I pulled up to try and understand this Twit nonsense. Wanna bet the numbers are fudged in some half lying way? Jillian HATES liars. Would she get appalled if won the bet?

From what I understand, WAPO use numbers from Jul 2015 to Jul 2016 compared to the same period a year earlier. So to relevant you'd have to use the same period.

Then -- those partial year tallies are not as statistically valid as "averages" over longer periods of time. That's just the reality of statistics.

Just as comparing your risk of dying from lightning to being killed by a terrorist is a stupid and meaningless comparison -- a lot of nuance is missed by tossing THESE numbers around.

What matters is the motivation and inspiration for the killings. Like the guy running out into the street after Baltimore and shooting a police officer sitting in his car at a traffic light. THAT is the inspired killing that shouldn't be happening.

You're correct. Except we have gone through other periods of volatility where cops were killed as a result of hostility from the general public. By the same token one has to ask about the reasons for the excessive ease with which cops shoot unarmed black men.

You keep saying stuff that nobody can remember.

So why don't you start cutting and pasting your links?

Is that so hard, PrettyPretty?

 

[yiostheoy]

Just as Democrats have sympathy for criminals and degenerates, when they get gunned down.

That is why Democrats are so much in favor of gun control—they know damn well that it will mean good guys have fewer guns, and bad guys have more, so that good guys will be gunned down more often, and bad guys gunned down less often.

True, but it goes a little further than that.

Democrats (like Republicans) seek to expand their voting base. One of their main support bases are victims: victims of big pharma, victims of big oil, victims of employers, victims of the rich, everybody is a victim of something.

To expand their base of victims, they simply need more of them.

If Hillary gets into office and appoints a bunch of Commie leftists to the Supreme Court, they can rule that we really don't have a constitutional right to own or carry firearms.

Cities and states can then make guns virtually illegal, and as you already pointed out, only the criminals would have guns.

Nobody can defend themselves against a person with a gun, and that makes us all victims. So how would we then be able to defend ourselves against Big Crime? Bigger government, just like what's needed to fight all those other Big intruders in our life.

Democrats really don't care if we have guns, Democrats care that we don't need them to protect ourselves.

To me, victimology is their only strategy. Study it. That is what ALL of their rhetoric is.

It is all dividing and conquering.

That is all they know.

The ubiquitous "they".

Why don't you try starting your statements with proper nouns rather than pronouns?

 

[yiostheoy]

Donald is just using the riots and the highway blocking these past few years for political points.

of course.

Really?

I've not been under the impression that the Black Lies Matter bunch were on Mr. Trump's side.

So really, all this violence, all this destruction, all this other trouble that these feral subhuman are perpetrating; they're doing it to support Mr. Trump?

No, Racist. Trump is exploiting these recent tragedies for his own purpose and perpetuating the false reality that crime is up.

Since crime has steadily gone down why do we need more firearms laws? Pray tell?

Has crime steadily gone down?
Do firearms have anything to do with it?
Do you believe everything someone else says?
Do you ever google stuff yourself?

I would guess that crime rates overall vary from year to year, up or down. Not steadily anything.

 

[WillowTree]

so you were saying, Donald?

Why do you liberals insist on justifying the thirteen murdered cops since Ferguson? Does this in anyway make you feel better?