57 Cops Murdered by “Unarmed” Criminals: From Stephen Frank

57 Cops Murdered by "Unarmed" Criminals: From Stephen Frank.

By this author’s calculations, 57 divided by 14, I come up with roughly 4.07 as an average per year. This to me would translate to a cop every three months. Not sure if my maths are correct but let me present that 4.07 is a percentage. In a unit of say 25 officers, I divide 25 by 4.07 which gives me 6.14 percent chance an officer takes of being killed by an unarmed suspect.

This doubles to 12.28 percent at 50 in a unit, and 18.42 percent at 75 in a unit. I am not sure how many in major city units. I can estimate rural townships may have around 100 per unit, though to be fair and average let me say it is likely closer to 50. Even at 100 the percentage is 24.56. Granted that seems a bit high.

Here’s the issue though, and bear with me. Police choose to face that risk. They choose to either be paid or volunteer to face this risk.They are aware of the risk but choose to do it despite the risk.

Now, how many unarmed people face maimings, killings unaware of a risk? These people find themselves engaged by police. The police have earned a reputation of intimidation, brutality and rightly so. The police keep expanding their arsenal/s, their tactics, their deceptions in entrapment schemes. Then, you have unarmed suspects come into confrontation with these, for benefit of being polite, thugs.

Please note, I am not espousing that all cops are the purest evil incarnate, or even slightly tainted. Yes, I do know there are very excellent police and peace officers. These officers go above and beyond professionalism without thanks. We have all seen the good officers too. They are the ones who step up and stop the bad officersfrom tazing pregnate mothers, wounded vetrans.

The point I am expressing, to me the odds base is roughly 4.07 percent a year that an officer will be killed in duty. This seems to be a risk, yes. This seems a low risk average, not that I desire seeing it go higher. Still, despite or regardless of the risk the officers choose the work aware of it. The article’s author fails to make a point.

As the officers knowingly face the risk, the author’s point of justifying officers being violent is nullified. Since they know but choose to engage the risk, violence is not justified. Yes self defense is acceptable to a point. That point is called self restraint and self discipline. I think most would agree that reasonable use of self defense does not require maiming or killing suspect/s.