American policing casualties

Just seen a brief article on the BBC news website www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32694445
about Police Week in Washington DC an annual get together for American police forces. Had a linked article about two Mississippi officers being shot and killed on 11/05/15 and the figure of 20,000 plus law enforcement having been killed on duty in the US since its creation. A quick google check came up with a figure of 4,000 of British police killed on duty between 1792-2012. Considering that we've had the Troubles and the Irish War of Independence with the RUC/PSNI and RIC being frequent targets, why is the US figure so much higher? Firearms have only become restricted in the last thirty years in the UK and (I think) the US population has only massively outstripped the UK's in the last century or so.
This thread is not a concealed dig at the USA, I'm just genuinely curious on the American/expat site users views on the subject.
 
IMHO its because yanks are nutters and the yank cops have the same nutiness but with the additional yank propaganda that yank cops are the greatest and everything they say goes or else nutiness. Mix the nutters together and you get mayhem.
 
The population of the US is 300m. The population of the UK is 60m. Thus the US is 5x the population.

Oddly enough, 4000 x 5 = 20,000.

QED.
If you'd read what I posted I discuss the fact that the US population has only become much larger than ours in the last century you dull tit along with the fact that we've had two sizeable terror campaigns directed at British policing agencies killing hundreds of officers which also skews the figures. Never mind you gave it your best go.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
If you'd read what I posted I discuss the fact that the US population has only become much larger than ours in the last century you dull tit along with the fact that we've had two sizeable terror campaigns directed at British policing agencies killing hundreds of officers which also skews the figures. Never mind you gave it your best go.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
If the US rate of incidence of police killings, and population multiplier is roughly 5x the UK rate for the last 100 years, then the first century when the populations were roughly equivalent will be dwarfed by the events of the last century. Even in the 1850s, the rate of population growth in the US was 35% or so.

You might also take into account things like mob violence of the 1930s in the US when places like Chicago were ungovernable and machine-gunning policemen was a pastime for some. Somewhat, though not entirely, analogous to the Irish terror campaigns.

I was always taught never to argue with idiots, they tend to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Now, shall we put the handbags away and have a reasoned discussion?
 
If the US rate of incidence of police killings, and population multiplier is roughly 5x the UK rate for the last 100 years, then the first century when the populations were roughly equivalent will be dwarfed by the events of the last century. Even in the 1850s, the rate of population growth in the US was 35% or so.

You might also take into account things like mob violence of the 1930s in the US when places like Chicago were ungovernable and machine-gunning policemen was a pastime for some. Somewhat, though not entirely, analogous to the Irish terror campaigns.

I was always taught never to argue with idiots, they tend to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Now, shall we put the handbags away and have a reasoned discussion?
But it hasn't been five times larger for a hundred years don't have the figures to hand but believe the US population has only been five times the UKs for about fifty years or so.
I'd be interested if you have any figures for that as far as I'm aware organised crime made a conscious effort not to kill police due to the shitstorm it tended to cause. Irish terrorism killed over 700 RUC/RIC officers as well as a fair few mainland ones, I'd be very surprised if American organised crime have gone out of their way to kill that many though as I said I'm happy to be proved wrong. That would also open up the further question of why American OC was so much more violent than their British counterparts towards police?
Nice, have you got that on a fridge magnet :p? Sorry for being bitey managed to take your post the wrong way.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Another consideration is that the larger the population, the further from "normal" will be the extremes. So in a population of say 100 people, the average height is say 5'9", the tallest might be 6'3" and the shortest say 5'1". if you expand the population to 500 people, the shortest will be shorter, and the tallest taller.

Extrapolating that idea to this question, in a larger population, you will get more violent nutters than in a smaller population. And more peace activists, but they don't stop cops being killed on duty.

Added to the difference in culture (e.g. a constitutionally-enshrined right to bear arms) and the effect of Hispanic gang culture in recent years, the drivers for higher cop killings are different to the UK.

But I still think it's basically arithmetic projection more than anything else.
 
The population of the US is 300m. The population of the UK is 60m. Thus the US is 5x the population.

Oddly enough, 4000 x 5 = 20,000.

QED.
So you got that figure from todays population figures despite the fact that the OP stated that the figures he is talking about is from the creation of the US. Did you actually read the post or did you just go for the usual knee jerk reaction?
 
If the US rate of incidence of police killings, and population multiplier is roughly 5x the UK rate for the last 100 years, then the first century when the populations were roughly equivalent will be dwarfed by the events of the last century. Even in the 1850s, the rate of population growth in the US was 35% or so.

You might also take into account things like mob violence of the 1930s in the US when places like Chicago were ungovernable and machine-gunning policemen was a pastime for some. Somewhat, though not entirely, analogous to the Irish terror campaigns.

I was always taught never to argue with idiots, they tend to drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Now, shall we put the handbags away and have a reasoned discussion?

Ah, you talk of reasoned discussion yet you basically call him an idiot. Typical.
 
So you got that figure from todays population figures despite the fact that the OP stated that the figures he is talking about is from the creation of the US. Did you actually read the post or did you just go for the usual knee jerk reaction?
Did you actually read my reply to him, or did you just knee jerk?
 
Ah, you talk of reasoned discussion yet you basically call him an idiot. Typical.
So he calls me a tit, I call him an idiot and then I offer to put the insults away. In the meantime, you just continue to wade in without reading and make yourself look silly.

Or should I have accepted being called a tit and just backed off in your world? Most odd.
 
Another consideration is that the larger the population, the further from "normal" will be the extremes. So in a population of say 100 people, the average height is say 5'9", the tallest might be 6'3" and the shortest say 5'1". if you expand the population to 500 people, the shortest will be shorter, and the tallest taller.

Extrapolating that idea to this question, in a larger population, you will get more violent nutters than in a smaller population. And more peace activists, but they don't stop cops being killed on duty.

Added to the difference in culture (e.g. a constitutionally-enshrined right to bear arms) and the effect of Hispanic gang culture in recent years, the drivers for higher cop killings are different to the UK.

But I still think it's basically arithmetic projection more than anything else.
Arithmetic wise it doesn't balance up though. 700 plus dead from Irish terrorism leaves 3,300ish to 20,000 and the US population as recently as 1950 was only 3 and a bit times higher than the UKs and was 282 million to 58 million in 2000, so the 5-1 population argument doesn't hold up as its only been at roughly that level for fifteen years out of the two hundred years used for the figures.
In relation to firearms, as I said in my initial post, strict gun control has only appeared in my lifetime as a result of Hungerford and Dunblane. Prior to that the British public could tool themselves up as well as any modern American.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 
Just seen a brief article on the BBC news website www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32694445
about Police Week in Washington DC an annual get together for American police forces. Had a linked article about two Mississippi officers being shot and killed on 11/05/15 and the figure of 20,000 plus law enforcement having been killed on duty in the US since its creation. A quick google check came up with a figure of 4,000 of British police killed on duty between 1792-2012. Considering that we've had the Troubles and the Irish War of Independence with the RUC/PSNI and RIC being frequent targets, why is the US figure so much higher? Firearms have only become restricted in the last thirty years in the UK and (I think) the US population has only massively outstripped the UK's in the last century or so.
This thread is not a concealed dig at the USA, I'm just genuinely curious on the American/expat site users views on the subject.
The table in the link shows a pretty steady increase over time from 1791.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/year.html

The figures show marked increases in deaths after the Civil War, WW1 and WW2. although the years when all the criminals were drafted off to war showed a consequent decline in police deaths. The high level of fatalities amongst US police is probably down to a number of factors. Population, gun culture, the fact that the police are armed so criminals must also be armed and vice versa and the willingness of both sides to shoot first and ask questions later.

Mind you of the 117 officers who died last year only 48 (41%) were shot. 32 or 27% died in RTAs and another 10 were struck by vehicles.

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html
 
Last edited:
Did you actually read my reply to him, or did you just knee jerk?
I see you cannot even come up with something original. Yes I did read your response, and it still makes no sense given that more and more US cops are getting killed in modern times....in recent times (since 2007) there has been an explosion of US cops getting slotted. Take the number of UK and US cops killed in 2014. By your maths, there should only be 15 cops killed in the US as 3 were killed in the UK that year (actually 2 died due to road traffic accidents and one due to sudden illness). Yet in 2014, 127 to a 133 cops died in the US. Not quite a the figure of 5 times you were aiming at is it?

In the US there is apparently a cop killed approximately every 53 hours now (taken from the US badge of honour memorial fund website http://www.bohmf.org/) So again, hardly the figure of 5 times that you were aiming at given that you were using figures relating to today.
 
Arithmetic wise it doesn't balance up though. 700 plus dead from Irish terrorism leaves 3,300ish to 20,000 and the US population as recently as 1950 was only 3 and a bit times higher than the UKs and was 282 million to 58 million in 2000, so the 5-1 population argument doesn't hold up as its only been at roughly that level for fifteen years out of the two hundred years used for the figures.
In relation to firearms, as I said in my initial post, strict gun control has only appeared in my lifetime as a result of Hungerford and Dunblane. Prior to that the British public could tool themselves up as well as any modern American.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)

Fair points. I don't think the average Brit tooled themselves up as much as the average American does though, even when they could.

In the early years of the US, there must have been some growing pains, and the lawlessness of the move west would have had a part to play. But the numbers probably wouldn't contribute massively to the total, given the small population at the time.
 
So he calls me a tit, I call him an idiot and then I offer to put the insults away. In the meantime, you just continue to wade in without reading and make yourself look silly.

Or should I have accepted being called a tit and just backed off in your world? Most odd.

To be fair I did not see the fact that he called you a tit. I was responding to your responses to me. That said, you are just as bad as him as if you want a reasoned discussion you would have refrained from calling him an idiot and stayed away from the playground stupidness.
 
playground stupidness.
IMHO its because yanks are nutters and the yank cops have the same nutiness but with the additional yank propaganda that yank cops are the greatest and everything they say goes or else nutiness. Mix the nutters together and you get mayhem.
 

Latest Threads

Top