how to injure a police officer

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:43 pm

koan wrote: what baffles me, anastrophe is how you can call spot an angry white man after the way you jumped all over my attempt to join the conversation. How did my comment justify your reaction? Anyway, as I said...I'm done with this thread too. I'd rather have liver for dinner.

you started out with a smarmy, sarcastic, and offensive opening sentence -

Not to downplay the nobility of police work but this article shed some light on its rank as "dangerous"

which of course, was indeed meant to downplay the 'nobility' of police work. then you proceeded to provide a list of accidental death rates. which was 100% non-responsive to what i was trying to determine, which was the relevant statistic, homicide rates for cops. you and spot have conflated accidental death rates with homicide rates. in a discussion that revolves around nothing having to do with accidental deaths for police.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:44 pm

spot wrote: fifty per year isn't a rate??

I need to return to school, evidently. I thought fifty per year was a rate.

see previous. back to school.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:50 pm

anastrophe wrote: you started out with a smarmy, sarcastic, and offensive opening sentence -

Not to downplay the nobility of police work but this article shed some light on its rank as "dangerous"

which of course, was indeed meant to downplay the 'nobility' of police work. then you proceeded to provide a list of accidental death rates. which was 100% non-responsive to what i was trying to determine, which was the relevant statistic, homicide rates for cops. you and spot have conflated accidental death rates with homicide rates. in a discussion that revolves around nothing having to do with accidental deaths for police.

that's ridiculous. there is no "of course" except in your imagination. you imply I meant the opposite of what I said and it was your choice to take offense at it.

I was looking up workplace fatality rates not "accidental"

now let me leave this thread.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:52 pm

anastrophe wrote: see previous. back to school.Now you're just being childishly inaccurate:

Rate: The amount or number of one thing which corresponds or has relation to a certain amount or number of some other thing. Chiefly in the phrase at (or after) the rate of; The second number being commonly unity (esp. some unit of time) is sometimes omitted.

As in fifty deaths by homicide per year. "you and spot have conflated accidental death rates with homicide rates" seems to avoid the fact that the rate provided to you at your request was indeed solely for homicides.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:55 pm

perhaps because of my keen interest in crime and violence, i've assumed an understanding that isn't prevalent. virtually all statistics pertaining to crime and violence are produced and referenced in terms of incidents per 100,000 population. the national murder rate in the U.S. is stated as X per 100,000 U.S. population. homicide rate for cops would then explicitly be stated as X per 100,000 law enforcement population.

this seems to me to be an unfailingly easy concept to understand. but maybe not.

the continued conflation of accidental death rates with homicides is an entirely other matter, which continues to push my blood pressure higher than i'm comfortable with. i'm incensed by this conversation. a cop is murdered. a week and a day later, two radio personalities make some poorly timed and poorly concieved 'lighthearted' comments about fighting with cops. they're fired. now spot has taken on their cause, these poor poor DJ's, unjustly fired from their jobs. they need their names and reputations cleared. this is somehow important. in proportion to a widow now raising her children without their father, because he was murdered in cold blood. that's not important. these two punks are important.

did you miss the portion of the page that carried the transcript, that also carried these lyrics by one of the DJ's?

"I remember when we used to get up on the roof and, nigga the next police ride

Down this mutha####in nigga we shootin, holes in a blue suit and

Hideout, regroup and, every pistol we shoot man, we gotta use 2 hands

Nigga I'm comin, nigga I'm gunnin', nigga I'm bustin, nigga you runnin

Jumpin, nigga you duckin..."

fine, upstanding young men engaging in cross-cultural discussion, indeed.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:04 pm

koan wrote: that's ridiculous. there is no "of course" except in your imagination. you imply I meant the opposite of what I said and it was your choice to take offense at it.

so you specifically disclaim any sarcasm in that comment, particularly in light of the word 'dangerous' being put in quotes. mmm. whatever you say.

I was looking up workplace fatality rates not "accidental"

so what? see previous. the statistics were meaningless in the context of the discussion. you posted them to minimize the perception that cops have a dangerous profession. ignoring that fatality rates are not the same as murder rates. not by any stretch of the imagination, even yours.

now let me leave this thread.

don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

my antipathy for your commentary on forumgarden is not new, is not shocking, is not unexpected, and portraying yourself as a 'victim' because of it is not unexpected either.

are my comments 'over the line'? as far as i can tell, i've been attacking the ideas you've posted, strongly and even harshly, but i am pretty sure i have not been attacking *you*, which is unacceptable here on FG.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:07 pm

anastrophe wrote: perhaps because of my keen interest in crime and violence, i've assumed an understanding that isn't prevalent. virtually all statistics pertaining to crime and violence are produced and referenced in terms of incidents per 100,000 population. the national murder rate in the U.S. is stated as X per 100,000 U.S. population. homicide rate for cops would then explicitly be stated as X per 100,000 law enforcement population.

this seems to me to be an unfailingly easy concept to understand. but maybe not. Do you know, that may be why the fact that the number of police murdered nationally is so surprising when people actually hear it. I've asked around today, and most guesses are around a thousand. I think the plain number should be shouted from the rooftops, rather than these oh-so-clever complicated formulae you're recommending. Fifty a year. Only fifty a year. That's such good news, after all the constant news-screams that the media pump out to scare everyone. I prefer my rate in terms of sheer informative shock value.

I take exception of "spewed", too. I've been careful to limit the information I've added to the thread, I've been careful to avoid any exponential increase in message size, I've been careful to stay as much on topic as I can, and I've tried very hard to alternate posts rather than to write wholesale so that nobody feels overwhelmed by material. Spewed is not an accurate description of the thread to date.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:15 pm

spot wrote: Do you know, that may be why the fact that the number of police murdered nationally is so surprising when people actually hear it. I've asked around today, and most guesses are around a thousand. I think the plain number should be shouted from the rooftops, rather than these oh-so-clever complicated formulae you're recommending. Fifty a year. Only fifty a year. That's such good news, after all the constant news-screams that the media pump out to scare everyone. I prefer my rate in terms of sheer informative shock value.

i am to believe that X per 100,000 is an "oh-so-clever complicated formula" that ' recommending". that's pretty funny.

as i just finished pointing out, this is a standard. and i am not recommending it, i'm simply using it. it has been in use for the better part of a century as i recall, so this isn't something new i'm springing on you.

perhaps you should take stock of your news sources. i can't remember the last time anyone suggested that there's an epidemic of police homicides here in the U.S.. Police homicides are taken very, very seriously when they occur, and rightfully so.

I take exception of "spewed", too. I've been careful to limit the information I've added to the thread, I've been careful to avoid any exponential increase in message size, I've been careful to stay as much on topic as I can, and I've tried very hard to alternate posts rather than to write wholesale so that nobody feels overwhelmed by material. Spewed is not an accurate description of the thread to date.

okay. spewed retracted for you.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:15 pm

anastrophe wrote: don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

my antipathy for your commentary on forumgarden is not new, is not shocking, is not unexpected, and portraying yourself as a 'victim' because of it is not unexpected either.

are my comments 'over the line'? as far as i can tell, i've been attacking the ideas you've posted, strongly and even harshly, but i am pretty sure i have not been attacking *you*, which is unacceptable here on FG."smarmy, sarcastic, and offensive opening"? Not attacking *you*? If you say so.

What you have failed to hear is that "dangerous" has nothing to do with "homicide" and everything to do with "death". The quotes did try to convey this, but you insist on the light shining just the way that most clearly delineates your own case. The whole point of "dangerous" is that cops don't have a particularly dangerous profession, it is in the safer band - go back and look at my chart if you don't like koan's. Yes it's second-highest for homicide. Great statistic. Nothing to do with how many people end up dead per million working hours or whatever measure you want to apply. So you have a special place for homicide as a means of extinction. That's arguable, by all means argue it. Don't claim "dangerous" to your cause though.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:17 pm

spot wrote: "smarmy, sarcastic, and offensive opening"? Not attacking *you*? If you say so.

What you have failed to hear is that "dangerous" has nothing to do with "homicide" and everything to do with "death". The quotes did try to convey this, but you insist on the light shining just the way that most clearly delineates your own case. The whole point of "dangerous" is that cops don't have a particularly dangerous profession, it is in the safer band - go back and look at my chart if you don't like koan's. Yes it's second-highest for homicide. Great statistic. Nothing to do with how many people end up dead per million working hours or whatever measure you want to apply. So you have a special place for homicide as a means of extinction. That's arguable, by all means argue it. Don't claim "dangerous" to your cause though.

i give up.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 5:27 pm

anastrophe wrote: i give up."don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out."

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:03 pm

have just come across this thread. How can anyone find advocating violence towards anyone else acceptable, and how can anyone find a 'rate' of 50 police officer deaths a year acceptable either??

The police are there to protect us, ostensibly, though like anyone else they make mistakes which are well-publicised, and we are all fully aware of their political place. However, I think most of them become police officers because they think they can make a difference, and do put themselves on the line, which certainly makes them better than such as me. The biggest professional risk I take is an uncomfortable conversation with someone who's tax I have miscalculated.

Post by **spot** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:12 pm

Tigerlily wrote: how can anyone find a 'rate' of 50 police officer deaths a year acceptable either??I'd be interested to see anywhere in this thread that's implied any such acceptability.

Tigerlily · Post by **Tigerlily** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 1:48 pm

the tone of the posts relating to the rate of the death on duty of police officers, in my opinion, implied that there was a rate that was acceptable.

Can't be bothered to go back and read it all to find out exactly where, but I'm not an idiot and if I get an impression, it's because of what's said. If someone says he/she didn't mean it like that, then he/she should choose his/her words with more care

Post by **spot** » Fri Jun 09, 2006 2:05 pm

Tigerlily wrote: the tone of the posts relating to the rate of the death on duty of police officers, in my opinion, implied that there was a rate that was acceptable.

Can't be bothered to go back and read it all to find out exactly where, but I'm not an idiot and if I get an impression, it's because of what's said. If someone says he/she didn't mean it like that, then he/she should choose his/her words with more careThe words missing from your memory, little playmate of Peter Pan, are "It's fifty too many". An unequivocal and heartfelt statement of opinion on my part. Nothing could express either my opinion or your own desire more succinctly. "Can't be bothered to go back" would do well to be conjoined with "Can't be bothered to post my prejudices".