Originally Posted by Dr Rockso
Hi everybody. I've not posted on GT in quite a long time, but I've spent the last couple days looking through a lot of the FBI's LEOKA data (for an unrelated matter, trying to dig up some data to combat some "cop-killer bullet" silliness going on in California right now).
I have to say that having looked at the data, I'm increasingly of the opinion that the "war on cops" articles I've been reading recently are yet another example of media sensationalism run amok. Looking at several LEOKA documents (including the one linked above by Patchman), you can see that once you control for the total number of officers the proportional number of assaults have decreased steadily and substantially since the '90s. The LEOKA reports these numbers are from are 2009, 2000, and 1996 (important because there are some year-to-year adjustments, but that variability isn't enough to skew the results significantly).
Is there something that I'm missing here?
I'm just curious, Dr Rockso, about the interpretations of the percentages. As per your post, in 1987, 16.85 % of LEOs were assaulted. In 2009, 10.30 % were assaulted. So in academia, what percentage of a population being assaulted is considered "reasonable?"
I mean, for example, if in 1987, 16.85 % of the Asian population in the U.S. were assaulted, and by 2009, only 10.30 % of Asian were assaulted, would that be considered OK? A great improvement? Why are they even complaining?
In the same time frame, 1987 to 2009, what percentage of America were victims of assaults?
And of course, how does LE's self-initiated Officer Survival movement that started in the early 1970s come into play? To imply that LE, statistically, is only getting safer because society is far less violent, is false.