Police

There Is Still No War on Cops

Left and right are both politicizing recent killings of police officers to advance their pre-existing agendas.

|

C-SPAN

The "war on cops" meme has been deployed over the years because it works so effectively to shut down discussions about police reform. That means even in the wake of prominent killings of police officers, people who insist they support cops will turn to politicizing such killings in order to stymie broader conversations about reform.

Yesterday at the Republican National Convention was a great example of that. Rudy Giuliani insisted cops had a "target on their backs." Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, another RNC speaker, said there was a "war" in this country in which Black Lives Matter was the enemy.

Yet even with the deadly attacks in Baton Rouge and Dallas, police line of duty deaths (and fatal shootings) are both on pace to be similar to numbers in recent years. That's not to be dismissive of this month's tragedy, but to be dismissive of the awful politicization of these tragedies (first by a left obsessed with gun control, now by opponents of police reform). There have been 31 fatal police shootings this year, on pace for 58*, according to data from the National Law Enforcement Officers' Memorial Fund. While there were 39 fatal shootings of police officers last year and 47 in 2014, the year police reform became a mainstream issue, the war on cops rhetoric predates the current uptick. This year's numbers are lower than 2011, when 68 law enforcement officers were shot and killed, 2010 with 59, and 2007, when 67 were killed. Killings of police officers have been going down for decades, despite an increase in the U.S. population and in the employment rolls of law enforcement.

Reason

The upper line is for line of duty deaths, the number often used by opponents of police reform to overstate the danger police officers face. (There were in 2014 more fatal injuries in the leisure industry than in policing, according to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics). The oft-repeated but inaccurate claim that a police officer is killed every 58 hours. A police officer dies while on duty about every 58 hours, but that includes accidents and other non-homicide deaths. The number of police line-of-duty deaths is on pace to be 121, the lowest number since 1959, when 115 police officers died in the line of duty.

Reason

One of the largest increases in fatal police shootings came in 1969, which saw a 35 percent increase in fatal police shootings. 1968 saw the most far reaching gun control legislation enacted in decades. Killings of police officers really took off in the 1970s, hitting a peak of 145 fatal shootings in 1975. Fatal shootings hit south of 100 in 1981 and has not gone above 100 since then, despite a proliferation of laws police are ordered to enforce on behalf of an increasingly fearful population increasingly amenable to the nanny state. The drop has also happened in spite of an increase in the U.S. population.

Republicans' cheap politicization of the attacks on police in Dallas and Baton Rouge was particularly tragic because it did not even attempt to offer solutions to lower the dangers faced by cops, it was just used to rile up an already friendly crowd, instead of, say, pointing out how the pressure for evermore laws by the left contributes to the conditions in which police violence thrives, an idea that comports with many of the things Republicans claim they believe in. For that matter, many of the proposals offered by Black Live Matter are rooted, whether activists acknowledge it or not, in ideas of limited, restrained government. Why would Republicans try to reach out to new voters by offering much-needed solutions to a problem Democrats have successfully exploited but failed utterly to provide solutions of their own for, when they could throw out bromides to ensure their base stays on their side instead? Especially when you can do it on the top of dead bodies.

*previously incorrectly calculated as 71

NEXT: The First Night of the RNC Was a Perfect Encapsulation of Donald Trump's Awful Political Campaign

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I get the spike in deaths in 2001, but what am I not remembering from 2007 that was a noticeable spike (with corresponding spike in gunfire deaths)?

    1. It was Phil Jackson winning his 900th game that did it.

      1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income… You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom and signing up… You can have your first check by the end of this week..
        .Go This Website…. http://www.trends88.com

    2. Spider-Man 3 came out in ’07.

    3. I get the spike in deaths in 2001, but what am I not remembering from 2007 that was a noticeable spike (with corresponding spike in gunfire deaths)?

      What makes normal variation into a “Spike”? Wouldn’t you have to first assume the phenomena being tracked follows some predictable patterns in order to define what a “Spike” is?

      In my read of that data, what stands out most is the rise from 1964 to 1976, where there was a ‘bubble’ . Everything else is normally noisy data within a range. (excepting 9/11)

      1. Sure, plus the absolute size is so low it doesn’t take much to “spike” (maybe 2 extra deaths a month would get you a noticeable spike in the late 00s).

        I was just scanning the trend and wondering about the spots where one year jumped out at me. I see 2001, then remember 9/11–I said I’d never forget–then get to 2007 and nothing jumped out at me, hence my question.

      2. and actually, i don’t think it was really a ‘bubble’ anyway; what would be more interesting to see would be to combine this data with the police shootings # and show when the ratio of “Police Shootings /Per Overall Murder Rate” starts breaking down

        the same “bubble” of police killings coincided with a period 1970-1990 where the murder rate basically doubled, then dropped back to 1960s-level “normal”

      3. To me, the total deaths look a little spikey in 2007, but not the gunfire deaths.

        Unless there was a bomb attack on the police that I’m forgetting, the 2007 spike ain’t “war” deaths, either.

        1. If you’re really all that curious, the source was already linked right here

          2006 Line of Duty Deaths: 161
          9/11 related illness: 6
          Aircraft accident: 3
          Assault: 1
          Automobile accident: 36
          Bicycle accident: 2
          Bomb: 1
          Duty related illness: 1
          Fall: 1
          Gunfire: 51
          Gunfire (Accidental): 3
          Heart attack: 16
          Motorcycle accident: 8
          Stabbed: 1
          Struck by vehicle: 9
          Training accident: 1
          Vehicle pursuit: 4
          Vehicular assault: 17


          2007 Line of Duty Deaths: 204

          9/11 related illness: 12
          Accidental: 4
          Aircraft accident: 3
          Animal related: 1
          Automobile accident: 49
          Boating accident: 1
          Bomb: 5
          Drowned: 3
          Duty related illness: 3
          Exposure to toxins: 1
          Fall: 3
          Gunfire: 67
          Gunfire (Accidental): 4
          Heart attack: 12
          Heat exhaustion: 1
          Motorcycle accident: 8
          Struck by vehicle: 9
          Vehicle pursuit: 6
          Vehicular assault: 10
          Weather/Natural disaster: 2

          Looks to me like simply above-average hits to a few categories – car accidents, 9/11 illness, shootings – combining to a ‘slightly higher than average total variance’

          2008 police deaths are closer to the 150 mean

    4. Officers driving around with new iPhones.

    5. Whatever it was, it was BOOOOOSH’S fault. /sarc

  2. Republicans’ cheap politicization

    Secondhand causes can be incited into firsthand dilemmas. Republicans are Masters of the Dread Goad.

    1. the Dread Goad

      Is he Master of Sails for the Dread Pirate Roberts?

      *sheepish grin*

      1. “Let him go, Ralph. He knows what he’s doing.”

  3. There is more to life than overall statistics and Ed knows that. If there were a spate of random killings of gay people, Ed wouldn’t write it off and talk about “hey what are the chances of the individual gay being shot”.

    More black men die a violent death today than did at the height of lynchings. The fact that black men were as a group safer then doesn’t make the lynching just no big deal. It is articles like this that make Libertarians look ridiculous. We seem to have about one random attack a week on cops right now. Maybe that will go away as the summer goes on. I don’t know. If it doesn’t and this continues, the sure as hell is a war on cops and we have a big fucking problem, I don’t care how many statistics Ed cherry picks. You don’t help your case by denying that Ed. You just make yourself look ridiculous.

    1. ‘There is more to life than overall statistics and Ed knows that. If there were a spate of random killings of gay people, Ed wouldn’t write it off and talk about “hey what are the chances of the individual gay being shot”.’

      Actually it’s probably exactly what I would say because I can recognize rhetoric being deployed for monstrosities like hate crime laws when I see them!

      “More black men die a violent death today than did at the height of lynchings. The fact that black men were as a group safer then doesn’t make the lynching just no big deal.”

      You’re right. Lynchings often happened with the support of the local law, today’ black-on-black crimes don’t. That’s why black-on-black crime is also irrelevant to discussions around police violence.

      “We seem to have about one random attack a week on cops right now.”

      Based on, uh, two data points. The plural of anecdote is not data.

      “Ed cherry picks”

      From the National Law Enforcement Officers’ Memorial Fund.

      I know you are smarter than this.

      Next.

      1. As a complete side note =

        I know you are smarter than this.“”

        ….Strikes me as the Second Most-Millenial Phrase next to “here’s why that’s a problem

        1. I can’t even…

          1. I feel that this is right.

              1. that’s a pretty easy to understand euphemism

                1. There’s no need to comprehension-shame everyone.

        2. Ed is hella woke, it is known.

            1. Can’t stop won’t stop

              1. Was expecting “sorry not sorry”

            2. Yeah, for some reason the “woke” neologism really grinds my gears.

              [looks around for cane to shake]

                1. Shit, Ed. Let us depart R C’s lawn forthwith!

              1. some reason the “woke” neologism really grinds my gears.

                It’s the “bae” of 2016.

                What I really dislike about it is that it’s going back to the old “false consciousness” argument, that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is under some delusion.

                1. While certainly true of anyone who doesn’t agree with me, i don’t see how it could possibly apply to the rest of the schmuckery.

                2. What I really dislike about it is that it’s going back to the old “false consciousness” argument, that anyone that doesn’t agree with you is under some delusion.em>

                  I think its entirely consistent with the “Educate yourself” and “you’re smarter than this” jabs…. which both pretend that a) “I am the enlightened being” but b) “you can not demand that i actually substantiate my reasoning beyond the thin-but-rhetorically-appealing-gruel i’ve already offered”

                  do you want to be woke? then stop asking questions and agree. but being all picky and shit about the arguments being presented means you’re stubborn, therefore probably motivated by racism

                3. To me, its shorthand for “has been thoroughly brainwashed by progs”.

              2. More or less than “black bodies”?

        3. “I know you are smarter than this.””

          ….Strikes me as the Second Most-Millenial Phrase next to “here’s why that’s a problem”

          I dunno. Seems like people have been saying that since millennials were just a twinkle in someone’s eye.

          1. Sure, but they took that passive-aggressive “hiding an insult behind a patronizing compliment” shit and just ran with it.

            1. Maybe. I don’t spend a lot of time tracking what millennials are doing. I thought Ed was older too.

      2. Inner-city violence is germane to the conversation, just not as a scapegoat or obfuscation for police abuses the way many L&O conservatives use it.

      3. “You’re right. Lynchings often happened with the support of the local law, today’ black-on-black crimes don’t.”

        Are you sure about that? Support may be too strong of a word. There looks to be at least a… tacit support for black-on-black crime today.

      4. why black-on-black crime is also irrelevant to discussions around police violence.

        I mostly agree with you but I wouldn’t go that far. Considering that their murder rate is so much higher than other groups, and dido for nearly every other class of crime with the exception of DUIs, it’s going to necessarily mean that blacks have more negative interactions with police and police for their part, naturally will have a bias when, for example, +51% of arrests for homicide are of young black men. The rate of criminality of a group that’s purportedly being oppressed by police more than other groups absolutely matters. It’s so fucking relevant, in fact, that you can’t accurately answer any other questions on this issue until you face that fact.

    2. Your argument is exactly what the left does on gun control. Overall murder rates are down, violence is down, etc. Yet, despite all the evidence and all the studies, the left politicizes every mass shooting to further their agenda.

      And even if there were a “war on cops” that does not mean that some police departments need reform in almost every single area of their policing.

    3. Better just to ignore statistic altogether and declare that there is a war on cops based on two incidents.

    4. “More black men die a violent death today than did at the height of lynching”

      Got that statistic on hand and did it control for population??

    5. “More black men die a violent death today than did at the height of lynching”

      Got that statistic on hand and did it control for population??

  4. An essential element to starting a war on cops is to bait each other into increasingly vitriolic rhetoric about how stupid and incompetent they are and how they ‘get what they deserve’. Then, when a cop is attacked, the main stream media can point to the comment sections and say, “They were radicalized online by web sites like this.”

    Thanks, Woodchippers, you’re doing great!

    1. Aside from the one on top of your head, do you have a point?

      1. Thanks, Woodchippers, you’re doing great!

        1. That’s a “no.” You do you, clownshoes.

          1. You are a woodchipping zombie. The only question is if you’ll ever realize it.

    2. If people were being radicalized by Reason’s website, Johnson would be polling higher.

  5. There is a difference, though: black activists and politicians have made clear to municipal police that their services are not welcome in predominantly black neighborhoods, that every incident will be politicized to the hilt long before the bodies are cold, that every officer caught up in a shooting will face a harrowing gauntlet in public life, that their families are not exempt from the crusade, and that every incident will be treated as a potential referendum on the legitimacy of policing. This is not a comfortable improvement over cops facing few penalties for misbehavior and then only rarely. In fact it merely shifts their modus from overpolicing to tactical negligence. This falls heaviest on the same black communities for which the racialists claim to speak, neighborhoods that face much greater violence and indignity from the criminals therein than they do from weary cops.

    The problem isn’t a war on cops, it’s a war on the very notion of policing. We libertarians have been highly critical, sometimes unfairly so, of individual cops and the blue wall of silence. But none of us denies the need for law enforcement for the protection of life and property. But that’s precisely what the racialists argue for.

    1. “Boo-hoo-hoo,” said Cindy Lou Who.

      The police only have themselves to blame for bad press and bad public opinion. I mean, is it that hard not to murder unarmed people? Is it some Herculean task to not be a massive prick to everyone you deal with who you are sure doesn’t have the political juice to get you in trouble?

      If they are incapable of doing the job, quit. If they do it badly, fire them. If they commit a crime, prosecute them like you would anyone else.

      1. If they are incapable of doing the job, quit. If they do it badly, fire them. If they commit a crime, prosecute them like you would anyone else.

        I don’t disagree with these steps. I do disagree that it would solve inequality or quench (un)related outrage machines in any real way.

        1. No, it would be a slow process, because it is a distrust built up over a very long time. It seems so difficult to get regular “civilians” to understand that police killing and brutality is not some new thing, it has been happening as long as officers of the state existed. Our country was created in part because of it.

          And it isn’t even a case of the perfect being an enemy to the good. All most police reform is after at this point is a simple “Don’t be so shitty.”

          1. “Don’t be evil”

            ….

            What?

            1. No, we tried that. Apparently, “evil” is too abstract for a bunch of super-geniuses.

      2. I’m not arguing that police conduct doesn’t need a serious looking over. I’m not arguing in favor of the thin blue line. In fact, major shakeups around the nation are badly needed. Huge reforms.

        That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a tremendous problem with how degenerate cities like Chicago have become, and the political solutions their progressive taskmasters have developed aren’t likely to address either rampant criminality or abuse.

        1. No they won’t. Most politicians benefit from it.

          Black-on-clack crime is so frequent for the same reason police brutality is: The criminals in both cases will probably not face any sort of punishment whatsoever.

          One of those is one only fixable once the other one is dealt with.

          1. strike that 2nd “one” in the last sentence

            1. But you are sticking with “black-on-clack”?

          2. One of those is only fixable once the other one is dealt with.

            This is setting up an intractable problem, because the “other side” will say the same thing, except with the roles reversed. The cops can only act like Andy Griffith when the criminals act like they’re in Mayberry! Or something to the same effect.

            Moreover, the two issues aren’t all that related. It doesn’t do anyone any good to make a promise “reign in the police and crime will go down” when you have no way to really effect that promise. You and I aren’t (AFAIK) the ones committing the crimes (or the ones reporting the statistics).

            1. This is my concern. We’re treating one problem as the symptom of the other (which is which rests entirely on one’s particular fixation), when they’re comorbid diseases with a similar provenance (in my opinion, progressive mismanagement).

              1. Oops, I should have said etiology. PEDANT FAIL.

            2. Black-on-clack crime is so frequent for the same reason police brutality is: The criminals in both cases will probably not face any sort of punishment whatsoever.

              Doesn’t that say exactly the same thing if you reverse the roles?

              Of course, to really do anything about the problems, first step should be to end drug prohibition and the other idiotic criminal laws that tend to disproportionately and unfairly burden poor people.

              1. Yes, but police unions love them some war on drugs! Im not condoning violence on cops, but how can pds build trust with people? Imagine being a child whose mother was arrested for crack cocaine and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison? Or 5 years for a joint? Sure, the courts and legislatures are part of the problems, but many police are the henchmen for the State.

                Its 2016, lets abolish vice squads. Who besides cops and Warriors care that people use drugs, engage in prostitution, sell loosies, etc?

      3. I got nuthin to add to SugarFree’s elegant summation.

      4. The police only have themselves to blame for bad press and bad public opinion.

        They have the politicians, voters, lobbyists, think tanks, pressure groups, etc., to blame, too.

        Every time someone says “there ought to be a law”, they’re in essence saying that people should die to stop something. The lobbyists and think tanks and the rest of the political industry pushes for laws, politicians champion them and pass them, and voters vote them in.

        Eric Garner died because someone said “there ought to be a law against selling loose cigarettes”.

        Freddie Gray died because someone said “there ought to be a law against switchblades”.

        Then there are the people who died because someone said “there ought to be a law against drugs” or “there ought to be a law against alcohol”.

      5. I think the point being made is that we seem to falling into a very destructive negative feedback loop which does not bode well for anyone involved.

    2. [citations needed]

      1. No thoughts on the Heather MacDonald articles in City Journal, specifically wrt: how onerous new requirements instituted by Emmanuel contributed to fewer points of contact in black neighborhoods? I argued yesterday that it sounds well and good in theory for most libertarians, living as we do in low-crime areas, but given the dysfunction of the places where these high-profile incidents routinely turn out protesters and rioters, it’s not necessarily a good thing to reduce police presence even if it reduces abuse. Because abusive police are far from being the only reason that inner-city violence is such a problem.

        1. I grew up in Newark and live in Philly, hardly low-crime areas. Increased police presence often has the unintended effect of increasing violence, and not just because cops are introducing it. People tend to act out if you signal that you’re expecting them to. This is a good review of MacDonald’s claims: https://reason.com/archives/201…..ar-on-cops

          1. I’ll take a look at that, Ed. Thanks for the responses.

    3. Wrong. The black community has tolerated police abuse because they are in fact highly dependent upon the law enforcement industries. However the members of BLM are no longer willing to lay themselves upon the altar of their parents’ career ambitions. It’s a generational struggle and BLM will win. This is a good thing. They don’t need more cops they need less. They can police themselves they are not animals. The war on drugs and war on guns (in Chicago) proves this. As a libertarian I don’t propose the immediate elimination of all law enforcement. But the industry is out of control and needs to be throttled back. Of course they will resist hysterically by claiming there’s a ‘war on cops’ and the woodchippers will spout angry, vile rhetoric and stupid nonsense to validate this and call it a ‘joke’ when they are confronted and say “Of course we are reasonable people, we love the cops.”

        1. Yeah, except for that bit of projection and moral equivalency at the end.

        1. Easy there, Stannis.

      1. I’ll just say it honestly, then. I’m an unreasonable person and I hate the cops. Anyone who would willingly lock someone up for drugs, or selling loose cigarettes or trying to sell sexual services is a piece of shit.

        Everyone has a line where “just doing my job” isn’t an excuse. That’s where I draw the line.

        (disclaimer: this is in no way intended to condone or promote the murder of police)

        1. Im reasonable, and i dont like what policing has evolved to-letting violent criminals, serial killers, serial rapists roam free, but pulling every trick in the book to find a hooker or a gram of crack.

          They need to create problems to boost their stats. That i dont like. Ive been on tge receiving end of prostitution busts. Five -10 cops spend all night entrapping girls. Where are they when your car is stolen? In my experience, cops dont do much when youre a victim of a real crime.

      2. I’m reasonable but I don’t love the cops. And the idea that petty tyrants should suffer a nasty end at the hand of those free people that they wish to subjugate is not a joke.

    4. Actually, I think a war on the very notion of policing might be just the thing we need. Because the problem is not individual officers or departments, the problem is the inherent nature of modern policing: the idea that there should be a dedicated force charged with both proactive and reactive law enforcement, answerable only to the state. This isn’t some kind of eternal truth; modern police forces are only about 200 years old at most. The effect of the idea has been to make law enforcement less democratic and less answerable to the community, not more, and to empower a small minority to use violence and bring the state’s monopoly on violence into everyone’s daily life. I don’t believe that’s the only way to do things.

      1. Good luck convincing progressives, who have taken the bull by the horns, that we need a free market in policing. I believe, you believe it, but the anti-capitalists on the left will never, ever buy it. They won’t even permit school choice if they have their druthers, for God’s sake.

      2. The fun thing is the alternatives to modern police forces have been SO demonized that the very people who want good police reform would never see them as viable options.

        They’ll ignore the fact that the Pinkertons had a better success rate in solving crime than police, and that the most violent the Pinkertons ever got resulted in only three stiffs. The fact that Pinkertons, and thus ALL private organizations, opposed the unions and therefore they are bad.

  6. Not disagreeing – but what is the threshold to calling it a war on cops?

    I certainly wouldn’t count the heart attacks and auto-accidents that kill most cops. Probably not a shoot-out trying to catch a bank robber or drug dealer even. Just the pre-meditated murder of police.

    1. i think it’s the specific targeting — the motive.

  7. OT: Man ‘knifes French woman and her three daughters’ in Alpine resort

    Initial reports claimed the man struck because he was angered by the women being “scantily dressed,” but a local prosecutor has denied this.

    Rapha?l Balland, prosecutor of Gap, said: “I wanted to quash the rumour currently doing the rounds because on no account did this man make such comments about the fact that the attack may have been motivated by the victims’ dress code.”

    The attacker, named as Mohamed B, 37, “may have acted out of religious motives”, French television channel TF1 reported.

    Despite the prosecutor’s denial, TF1 reported that he was angry that the girls were wearing shorts.

    The mother had helped the attacker when he became ill the previous day, TF1 said.

    He stabbed the girls while they breakfasted on the terrace of their chalet and then went inside and knifed their mother.

    The 8-year-old was rushed to hospital in Grenoble with a punctured lung, according to initial reports.

    1. The attacker, named as Mohamed

      Aren’t they all?

      1. Can you imagine if 4/5ths of all Christian males were named “Jesus?” It’d be mass confusion.

        1. Its bad enough that 4/5ths of my servants are named “Jesus”. Fortunately, I don’t really care which one responds when I snap my fingers and say “Gum!”.

          1. “Chicle, meester?”

            1. I don’t permit my servants to address me directly. I’m not an animal, you know.

          2. Huma brings the gum, not Jesus.

      2. Further support for my plan of making it a crime to be named Mohamed.

    2. Yes, yes, his motives shall forever remain mysterious, of course they will.

  8. The term war is probably the most misused one in our language, right after terrorism.

  9. Police are being targeted for premeditated attacks, they aren’t getting in shootouts in the line of duty. Whatever you want to call that I can’t recall it happening on this scale in my lifetime. I read the Dallas shooting was the deadliest day for police since 9/11.

    1. Police are being targeted for premeditated attacks, they aren’t getting in shootouts in the line of duty.

      True, but the WoC rhetoric predates and is unhooked from the two or three ambushes we have actually seen.

      1. Besides Dallas, what recent events have been conclusively shown to be premeditated attacks targeting police? A shootout in progress where the cops arrive and get shot is probably not a premeditated attack, for example.

        1. It looks like the Baton Rouge cop killings were deliberately targeting the police. We are still under the 4 day rule, but it does seem more likely than not that the shooter caused a disturbance to draw police to him in order to kill them.

          1. Ah, ok. In looking up more on the story, I found that the police chief, justifying the “militarization” of his force, said this: “We are up against a force that is not playing by the rules. They didn’t play by the rules in Dallas and they didn’t play by the rules here.”

            There are rules for shooting the cops?

            1. I doubt he realizes that he’s making the point of how rare these incidents are.

            2. I don’t think that any murderers are playing by the rules. Murder is definitely against the rules.

        2. As far as I know the report of a shooting prior was false. The police claim the first response was to a man carrying a gun. He shot at those officers, then more officers were called in.

          A witness claimed to see shootout prior to the cops arriving, and said he saw one civilian lying on the ground dead.

          No civilians were killed, more likely he mistakes the first cops arriving for the next reacting to the shots fired. It doesn’t appear to be a crime gone bad or anything of the sort.

          1. Yeah, it seems so. SugarFree is right about waiting a few days for the early “reports” to be quashed and more reliable reporting to rise tot he surface.

      2. “True, but the WoC rhetoric predates”

        I once heard the statement “If you lie hard enough, eventually the universe agrees with you.” I wonder if these latest incidents are that lie coming to fruition.

    2. I read the Dallas shooting was the deadliest day for police since 9/11.

      If true, all that demonstrates is that it’s pretty safe to be a cop in this country.

  10. I agree that, in the sense that the phrase “War on Cops” is meant, there is no such thing, HOWEVER,

    It is clear that, for a number of reasons, LEOs think that there is a concerted social movement to “get” them. Telling them that this just isn’t so isn’t going to convince them. And statistics are misused so often to “prove” one thing or another, that they re a weak argument.

    So, how about another approach;

    “Yes, there is a war on Cops. You are being put into danger by stupid, failed policies like The War On Drugs. You are being made into the enemy of inner city poor by being asked to enforce pettifogging regulations that eat away at their substance. You are being pushed into an inappropriate and dangerous Militaristic stance by being given military tools more appropriate to fighting an insurgency than to police work. The way to get you out of danger is to get the government off of the necks of the poor.”

    1. Nobody here is talking about generational poverty cultivated by Progressive policy, how that concentrated misery gives a catalyst like the WoD something something to gnaw upon.

  11. Is there a subsection in the data for dirty cops getting murdered?

  12. Especially when you can do it on the top of dead bodies.

    Dead bodies make the best soap boxes. IT IS KNOWN.

  13. Can you be on the side of “There is NOT a war on Cops” based on the statistical evidence, yet also think that BLM groups that shout “WHAT DO WE WANT??!!? DEAD COPS!! FRY EM LIKE BACON!!!” etc. are in fact INSTIGATING a “war on Cops”?

    I agree that there is no data to support the claim that cops are at greater risk than they normally are, yet I also cannot remember the last time there were multi-city anti-cop rallies where they literally chanted for dead cops.

    1. Late 1960’s, early 1970’s. Another stupid era.

      1. One could argue that there was a War on Cops back then, but you could also argue there was a war by the cops on inner city ghettos as well. I mean, Philly cops literally BOMBED a neighborhood back in the 60’s.

          1. And in spectacularly stupid response to a spectacularly stupid “Black Revolutionary” group.

          2. 1985 to be even more accurate.

            I was way off. This was during the 80’s crime wave when people predicted the 90’s would become blood-flowing-through-the-streets bad due to crime.

            1. Sheesh, that’s what I get for skimming the Google summary. I knew it was in the 1980s.

    2. I’ve been saying that it appears that a couple of people on the “not cop” side took this “War on Cops” thing seriously and joined up. Despite there not really being a serious “not cop” side until a week ago.

    3. If theres a war on cops, it was started by the cops. Lets see…killing 12 year olds with toy guns in 2 seconds, choking people over loosies, shooting homeless people, arresting people for what they do with their own bodies, flashbang grenades into babies cribs, no knock raids where they kill grandmas, shooting teens bc they have weed, confiscating peoples businesses and life savings on mere suspicion of vice crime, etc etc etc…
      They do all this then get a paid vacation.

      It was only a matter of time before people started shooting police, not that i condone it

  14. There Is Still No War on Cops

    But there can be one if we don’t hurry and suspend the Constitution because, after all, IT IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT! (Trumpo dixit)

  15. Might be interesting to run those charts as per capita rates, both against total population and against the number of cops. I suspect doing so would steepen the downslope, and for the longer-term one, at least, might be more informative.

  16. This kinda reminds me of leftists who point to aggregate sum of all terrorist acts to insist that radical Islam isn’t the primary source of terror in the world. But obviously random, disparate eco terrorists and obscure European separatists who blow up vans are less of a threat than ISIS, which is a terrorist pseudo nation state.

    I’m not afraid of mass shootings, because those are anomalies. Most of the perpetrators are disturbed individuals. The public shootings committed by ISIS and their volunteers are on another level. These are people wholly committed to mass destruction to achieve a certain end. I can make the distinction, even though “gun violence” as a whole is not particularly high.

    So no, there is no “war on cops” in the conventional sense. The overall police fatality won’t be that high overall. But we’re not talking about cops simply losing his life in the line of duty. Hostility against the police is mounting from crowds who are increasingly revealed to be terrorists. The two most recent police assassins hailing from black racialist groups closely aligned with BLM. This is a group that crashed gay pride parades and memorials of shooting victims DAYs after the tragedy. They block ambulances from passing. I don’t doubt most of them are peaceful, but it’s entirely credible to say that they engage in ACTUAL militant rhetoric that inspires the fringe, with the apologetic media by their side.

    1. The cops are not being hunted by an organized radical faction. They are being put in a vice by a number of social phenomena;

      ? Racial Activists like Al “I’m such a bigot that if I were white I’d be a Grand Dragon” Sharpton are allowed to turn every cop-on-black incident into a case of Racial-whatever instead of being in jail for fraud, where they belong.

      ? Politicians of both parties push pettifogging regulations that have cops harassing inner city poor for crap that, realistically, doesn’t matter. This causes a festering resentment that creeps like Sharpton can use.

      ? The Police Unions, like most Unions, make no distinction between a good member being railroaded by management and a bad apple getting his just deserts. So you have police spokesmen defending the indefensible.

      ? Cops are being given training and tools that breed confrontation. I don’t know who thought it was appropriate to do SWAT raids on poker games, but he should be institutionalized.

      There’s a lot more. None of it is a concerted effort to kill cops. All of it could be expected to put cops in dangerous situations, if anyone was doing any thinking.

    2. Hostility against the police is mounting from crowds who are increasingly revealed to be terrorists.

      Linkee, por favor?

      1. I was trying to say something to the effect of “groups who rationalize their actions like terrorists” and didn’t complete the thought. My mistake.

  17. There’s a drive-through convenience store in the town I grew up in where there was always at least one police cruiser picking up donuts and packs of Marlboros. They are probably responsible for some of these deaths.

  18. The supporters of police abuse on one hand, and the BLM people on the other, are involved in a folie ? douche, each stoking the other’s retardation.

    The chance of any intelligent thought emerging from this process is very small.

    But I mainly posted this so I could use the phrase folie ? douche.

  19. How many of those gunfire deaths were ambushes? There’s a huge difference between a shootout at a bank and getting sniped or intentionally targeted.

    1. The huge difference is a shootout at a bank is a criminal act. Ambushing and intentionally targeting is also criminal but has a political dimension. Author Ed doesn’t see it this way. He writes in the first paragraph: “people who insist they support cops will turn to politicizing such killings in order to stymie broader conversations about reform.” Presumably he sees ambushing the police is just another criminal act, and it’s only made political by people who seek to stymie reform, rather than these acts being political right from their conception, as a means of resistance.

  20. I left my office-jobs and now I am getting paid 98 usd hourly. How? I work over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was forced to try something different, 2 years after…I can say my life is changed-completely for the better! Check it out what i do..

    ========= http://www.Aspire-Jobs.com

  21. @Ed Krayewsi, please become a cop. And please forgo the bp vest (nothing to worry about).

  22. I made a compilation video 3 months ago of some of the most inflammatory voices calling for the killing of cops, including Louis Farrakhan who wants 10,000 young black men to sacrifice their lives to kill (white) cops. He keeps reiterating this constantly in his rhetoric. Why hasn’t HE been arrested if we are going to arrest people for that? Besides the increase in people calling for the death of cops (usually the word WHITE is in the sentence) what about the many other manifestations of hostility & violence which didn’t result in death however could possibly confirm a totally reasonable even logical assertion that there is something erupting which some are terming ‘a war on cops’. I’m seeing it- and it’s very concerning.

    OF COURSE it is politicized to serve agendas. What isn’t politicized? Doesn’t mean something isn’t happening.

  23. Yeah to say there isn’t something really nasty going on is willing ignorance. Case of cop served at a restaurant- someone put glass in his sandwich. Not surprised this was Ohio: http://lawofficer.com/2016/07/…..-sandwich/

  24. There’s also no “war on black lives.” I will wait with bated breath for the reason video on that.

  25. You’re missing the obvious difference between typical cop killings and what we have seen over the last two weeks: pre-meditated, calculated cop killings. To overlook the aforementioned piece of this puzzle is reckless.

  26. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.

    ———————-> http://www.CenterPay70.com

  27. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.