LEO statistics

How do you define "law abiding"?

Do you mean citizens commit fewer unjustified shootings?

Or, are you speaking broadly, to all forms of legal infraction (speeding, fraud, you name it...)

I don't know any hard statistics but if you watch reddit.com there's a story of a cop doing something pretty gruesome almost every other day. However many of these guys are let off with just suspension or being fired and no criminal charges, even when a death results. So the statistics will most likely show they are pretty clean.

I think that you would have to look in separate spots for that data for occurrences per 100,000 people and then compare the results of both in a ratio between the two.

in before the lock

Counter with, "Innocent until proven guilty."

justashooter in pa said:

in before the lock

Click to expand...

Why would you expect this to be locked? I think it is a perfectly valid question. It is a given that not all police officers use the best judgement 100% of the time. You only have to look in the news to see it. I too am somewhat curious just how often police officers break the law thinking they will be above reproach. The real question IMO is whether there are as many incidents as the reporters make it out to be, or if they just make it seem more or less prevalent than it is?

Public scrutiny is a part of being a police officer. When you screw up at whatever your job is, nobody cares. When a cop screws up, THE DARK KNIGHT reads about it at reddit.com.

That said, I thought at least this forum would be above this sort of BS. Since anecdotal "evidence" and "I heard somewhere something like" is good enough now, try this: not two weeks ago, I arrested a CPL-holding shoplifter with his legally carried gun on his person. I have yet to encounter a police officer committing a crime.

I hope this thread doesn't get locked. As long as I'm hoping, I hope people flood it with posts thanking their local police departments/Sheriff's offices for doing an impossible job, and the initial request of some guy looking to bolster his debate about CPLs by smearing police gets lost in the shuffle.

I think the OP needs to narrow his definitions. Every adult in the country commits multiple crimes every day; the only difference between the "law abiding" and the folks in jail is that the crimes they committed are enforced more vigorously. Cops break the law just as much as anyone else, as a group; the problem is that police officers are entrusted with more authority than the average citizen, so they can get away with far more atrocious rights violations than Joe Citizen.

When Michigan standardized the laws for concealed carry... there was a pretty LARGE number of LEOs, and corrections officers... who while still "on the job" couldn't qualify for a CPL... too many had serious misdemeanors in their history or had a PPO on them.

Before we became a "shall issue" state these guys were approved by the local gun boards after a little wink wink action. It was an old boy's club environment.

some statistics indicate that law enforcement poeple get into more unjustifiable shootings than civilians even though there are a hel of a lot more legally armed civilians than sworn police officers.. This does not mean that law enforcment officers are bad orless geood than civilians. It is merely an unavoidable off-shoot of their job description. Police are suppoed to go looking for trouble and civilians are not. the natural outcome is that they will be involved in more shootings of a questionable nature than those who have the optiuon to avoid potentially bad situations.

Public scrutiny is a part of being a police officer. When you screw up at whatever your job is, nobody cares. When a cop screws up, THE DARK KNIGHT reads about it at reddit.com.

That said, I thought at least this forum would be above this sort of BS. Since anecdotal "evidence" and "I heard somewhere something like" is good enough now, try this: not two weeks ago, I arrested a CPL-holding shoplifter with his legally carried gun on his person. I have yet to encounter a police officer committing a crime.

I hope this thread doesn't get locked. As long as I'm hoping, I hope people flood it with posts thanking their local police departments/Sheriff's offices for doing an impossible job, and the initial request of some guy looking to bolster his debate about CPLs by smearing police gets lost in the shuffle.

Click to expand...

I don't think he intends to use the information as a smear campaign against police, rather as a tool to help keep gun rights in his state.

Personally I think a person of *any* profession should come under close scrutiny whenever someone is injured or killed in the execution(sorry can't think of another word) of that profession. I also think that scrutiny should be from an impartial 3rd party. For exampe if a truck driver kills someone in an accident I would not find it acceptable for the trucking company to investigate whether there was any wrong-doing on the part of the driver. I also don't think it is right for the police to investigate their own shootings. I am sure that the majority of officers are capable of running an impartial investigation, but for something like that I think that even the *appearance* of partiality should be avoided.

If it were up to me shootings by city/county police would be investigated by the state police. Shootings by the state patrol would be investigated by the FBI, and shootings by the FBI/DEA/US Marshal service would be investigated by the city, county or state police in the jurisdiction that the shooting occured.

the problem is that police officers are entrusted with more authority than the average citizen, so they can get away with far more atrocious rights violations than Joe Citizen.

Click to expand...

You have no idea what "Joe Citizen" gets away with vs. the scrutiny under which police operate. And the idea that police "get away with atrocious rights violations" is nonsense that depends on ethereal "unreported statistics" that can never be quantified. Meanwhile the inevitable termination of police due to rights violations are very public and very quantified.

When Michigan standardized the laws for concealed carry... there was a pretty LARGE number of LEOs, and corrections officers... who while still "on the job" couldn't qualify for a CPL... too many had serious misdemeanors in their history or had a PPO on them.

Click to expand...

I'm interested in reading on this. I've not been able to find any documentation of this phenomenon. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

Personally I think a person of *any* profession should come under close scrutiny whenever someone is injured or killed in the execution(sorry can't think of another word) of that profession.

Click to expand...

Let's describe the profession a little more accurately. As happened in Seattle last week, it's a profession that makes you a target of the absolute worst, most despicable people in this society. People so without redemption, they're willing to drive up to a car and kill its occupants just because they dared wear a badge and stand up to them. If the slain officer had managed to shoot first, he'd be under scrutiny from people questioning whether it was an "unjustified" shooting and the topic starter here would be citing it as an example of why police screw up so he should be able to have a CPL.

It's a profession you never clock out of, that makes your families and friends targets as well. The truth is, police officers do society a service they can never be thanked for, and most people have such low opinions of them that concerns such as that of this thread are prevalent and concerns such as "police officer followed home by car full of thugs" is never considered.

You have no idea what "Joe Citizen" gets away with vs. the scrutiny under which police operate. And the idea that police "get away with atrocious rights violations" is nonsense that depends on ethereal "unreported statistics" that can never be quantified.

Click to expand...

Joe Citizen is not a public servant. Police officers are.

I have never, not once in my life, been unlawfully detained by a private citizen. I have been unlawfully detained AT LEAST three times by uniformed police officers. To me, that's plenty quantified.

It's a profession you never clock out of, that makes your families and friends targets as well.

Click to expand...

Nobody holds a gun to your head and says "you MUST be a police officer." It may very well be a thankless job, but construction work and various other occupations are far more hazardous statistically. If you don't think dealing with the criminal element is worth what the job pays, quit.

I do remember reading somewhere that the most famous, or infamous for AD's are cops. As far as my own observations in traffic infractions, cops are far worse than ordinary citizens at: speeding, changing lanes w/o using signal, unsafe lane changes, and tailgating whilst distracted IE: looking at the computer to run the tailgatees license plate!

I also ride a motorcycle on the street, and EVERY cop that gets behind me almost hits me whilst running my plate....every one!

In my car, the BMW they NEVER run my plate and I do watch them whilst at a light....

Let's describe the profession a little more accurately. As happened in Seattle last week, it's a profession that makes you a target of the absolute worst, most despicable people in this society. People so without redemption, they're willing to drive up to a car and kill its occupants just because they dared wear a badge and stand up to them. If the slain officer had managed to shoot first, he'd be under scrutiny from people questioning whether it was an "unjustified" shooting and the topic starter here would be citing it as an example of why police screw up so he should be able to have a CPL.

It's a profession you never clock out of, that makes your families and friends targets as well. The truth is, police officers do society a service they can never be thanked for, and most people have such low opinions of them that concerns such as that of this thread are prevalent and concerns such as "police officer followed home by car full of thugs" is never considered.

Click to expand...

I don't see why you are jumping to these conclusions. As the OP stated already he is just trying to gather enough information to make an argument for his state to become a "shall issue" state.

I don't disagree with anything you said about the profession of law enforcement. We have the luxury of living in a "shall issue" state though, so I am confused why you would want to keep other states from obtaining that same status.

Don't be confused: his goal is to make CPL carriers look better by making LEOs look worse to achieve his ultimate end.

"Joe Citizen" doesn't know what an "unlawful detention" is. Police have the right (and DUTY) to detain people in the investigation of a crime or the possibility of a crime. The standard for a legal detention is very low. What Geoff means is that he didn't commit a crime, so he thinks the detention wasn't legal. If this were the way it worked, police simply couldn't operate.

"Joe Citizen" doesn't know what an "unlawful detention" is. Police have the right (and DUTY) to detain people in the investigation of a crime or the possibility of a crime. The standard for a legal detention is very low. What Geoff means is that he didn't commit a crime, so he thinks the detention wasn't legal.

Click to expand...

I am well aware of what constitutes reasonable articulable suspicion, upon which I can be detained for further investigation. I was doing nothing that could possibly be construed as illegal at the time(s) of my detention.

Make no mistake: Police do NOT have any right to detain people. They have a granted POWER and DUTY to detain someone upon suspicion that a crime is being or has been committed, but that is a far stretch from a right.

Imo we should not fear the truth.

If there aren't enough "unjustified shootings" to support his assertion I don't see how that is going to make police look bad. Unless he is being dishonest/deceptive in how he gathers or presents that information. So far I have seen no reason to believe he is though.

*If* there are enough unjustified shootings to support his assertion though it is not the OP making police look bad, it is the officers who were involved in those unjustified shootings. If you attack his character for bringing to light honest accurate information you are only "shooting the messenger"

You are right that police have a mostly thankless job, and the risks they take are not even close to balanced by their pay. But as long as the OP is honest in how he gathers/presents information then I don't see a problem with him using it if he can to help make his state a shall issue state.

I seem to recall that particular tidbit came from a well known person. Maybe one of the 2A scholars.