I thought that was a Joisy exclusive!!! On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 5:36 PM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not to mention the lucrative payouts from mob associates. > On Jul 10, 2016 4:31 PM, "Brian Bednarek" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I don't know what is like where you live, but in my part of NJ, the next >> town over was in the list: >> >> How much does a Police Patrol Officer in Edison, NJ make? The median >> annual Police Patrol Officer salary in Edison, NJ is $62,127, as of June >> 24, 2016, with a range usually between $51,746-$73,318 not including >> bonus and benefit information and other factors that impact base pay. >> However, the salary for someone with the title Police Patrol Officer may >> vary depending on a number of factors including industry, company size, >> location, years of experience and level of education. Our team of Certified >> Compensation Professionals has analyzed survey data collected from >> thousands of HR departments at companies of all sizes and industries to >> present this range of annual salaries for people with the job title Police >> Patrol Officer in Edison, NJ. >> >> Not super rich, but if you take in consideration that they have Cadillac >> healthcare and a pension after 25 years ... not a bad gig ... if I was to >> redo my youthful choices, i would either be a teacher or a cop!!! >> >> On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 5:26 PM, geoffrey theist <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Maybe they'll take the opportunity to take responsibility for the sad >>> state of their neighborhoods. self policing and ridding themselves of the >>> criminal element that keeps them in the quagmire of desperation and >>> despair!!!!!! NAH. they could do that now. The one leader they have >>> preaches self reliance is the most reviled Louis Farrakhan. >>> >>> On Jul 10, 2016 2:17 PM, "Keith In Tampa" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > Hey Perp! >>> > >>> > The long term effect could in fact be more devastating.....Law >>> Enforcement is not all that well paying in the first place; it takes a >>> certain type of individual to even consider wanting to do this type of >>> job. I tend to think that it may be harder to fill vacancies down the >>> road..... >>> > >>> > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 10:13 AM, 'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Good morning, Keith. >>> >> >>> >> I think the obvious short-term impact of this week will be that fewer >>> and fewer cops will bother to patrol the high crime and high violence black >>> neighborhoods all over America. Their black-on-black violent crime rates >>> (including murder) will probably skyrocket. And this sucks, as we've all >>> seen the completely innocent 6-year old kids who get murdered by the >>> savage, murderous thugs in cities all over America. >>> >> >>> >> On Sunday, July 10, 2016 at 9:26:30 AM UTC-4, KeithInTampa wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Thanks for providing accurate data Perp! >>> >>> >>> >>> I also find it a bit ironic (as well as astonishing!) that >>> Libertarians and active members of the progressive left can label >>> conservatives as, "hyperventilating diptards"; or make such a claim as: >>> "There's No War On Cops" after what we've witnessed since the "Trevyon >>> Martin/Michael Brown/Black Lives Matter" hate groups have sprung up, >>> advocated a "tit-for-tat" killing spree mentality; and these hate groups >>> have been flaimed by the Secular Progressive left of centeer Democratic >>> Party. >>> >>> >>> >>> My God Man! There were at least eight law enforcement officers this >>> past week gunned down and murdered (predominately based on false narrative >>> media stories!) and at least another ten who were shot but survived their >>> wounds, across the Nation just this past week! The audacity of the liberal >>> left never ceases to amaze me. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Jul 9, 2016 at 10:21 PM, 'Perplexed' via PoliticalForum < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> The data cited in your article is quite outdated. Most of it only >>> goes through 2012 and this is 2016. The militant black movements didn't >>> start getting support from the mainstream media, NFL players, celebrities, >>> and every dumbass democrat in the House of Representatives until late 2014 >>> after months of the "hands up don't shoot" bs lies they all pushed to the >>> mobs. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> According to the FBI there were 27 murdered on the job in 2014 and >>> 51 (yes, FIFTY-ONE) murdered on the job in 2015. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> There have been at least 26 police officers killed on the job using >>> guns so far this year. That means we will no doubt lose at least 50 by the >>> end of the year even if it doesn't get any worse. That's more than TWICE - >>> and almost THREE TIMES the number of blacks who were killed by cops who >>> weren't doing something to warrant being killed. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> So what there isn't is a war or open season on black people. THAT >>> is the lie that needs to stop being told. There IS, however, an ALARMING >>> increase in the number of cops being shot by murderous thugs doing so based >>> on the PACK OF LIES being fed to them by disgusting democrats, a dishonest >>> media, and black activists. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> On Saturday, July 9, 2016 at 5:45:37 PM UTC-4, MJ wrote: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Karen DeCoster "Let Radley Balko's article shut up all of the >>> hyperventilating diptards. Facts are more powerful than your state-worship >>> and ignorance-based cliché recitals. " >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> September 10, 2015 >>> >>>>> Once again: There is no ‘war on cops.’ And those who claim >>> otherwise are playing a dangerous game. >>> >>>>> By Radley Balko >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Here’s Fox News earlier this week, shamelessly exploiting a >>> tragedy to gin up outrage. >>> >>>>> http://youtu.be/x9uJHbXpMoU >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> They certainly aren’t the only ones. Here are some more examples >>> of media outlets and politicians spreading the hysteria: >>> >>>>> “War On Police Sparks National Crime Wave” >>> >>>>> “Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick: There’s A War On Cops And Media ‘Are Not In >>> Police Officers’ Corner'” >>> >>>>> “Police face recruiting shortage due to war on cops” >>> >>>>> “Do Cops’ Lives Matter to Obama?” >>> >>>>> “[New York Police Chief] Bratton warns of tough times ahead due to >>> ‘war on cops'” >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> As I’ve noted here before, we’re seeing similar rhetoric from >>> politicians, particularly from GOP presidential hopefuls, including Donald >>> Trump, Ted Cruz, and Scott Walker. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> All of this fact-free fearmongering is having an effect. A >>> Rasmussen poll taken last week found that 58 percent of respondents now >>> believe there is now a “war on police.” Just 27 percent disagreed. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> So let’s go through the numbers. Again. So far, 2015 is on pace to >>> see 35 felonious killings of police officers. If that pace holds, this year >>> would end with the second lowest number of murdered cops in decades. Here’s >>> a graph depicting annual killings of cops with firearms from Mark A. Perry >>> at the American Enterprise Institute: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> But these are just the raw numbers. If we look at the rate of >>> killings of cops, the trend is more pronounced. There are two ways examine >>> the rate of police killings. The first is to look at the rate of killings >>> of cops per 100K cops on the street. This figure is somewhat difficult to >>> calculate because there are widely varying estimates of how many cops are >>> on the street. It depends on how you define “police officer,” who is doing >>> the estimating, and various other factors. But if you use consistent >>> sources, the number of police has generally gone up, while the number of >>> officers killed has generally gone down. So your graph looks something like >>> this one, from Dan Wang: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> The other way you could measure the rate of killings of police >>> officers is to look at the number with respect to the overall population. >>> Here’s another graph from Perry that plots those figures: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> As you can see, by this measure 2015 is shaping up to be the >>> second safest year for police ever, after 2013. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Speaking of which, it’s important to note again here that 2013 was >>> an abnormally and historically low year for police fatalities, as this >>> graph from University of South Carolina law professor (and former police >>> officer) Seth Stoughton shows. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> [Tweets @ link] >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> So when police advocates say that 2014 saw an 80+ percent increase >>> in homicides of cops over 2013, remember a few things: First, 2013 wasn’t >>> just an all-time low, it was an all-time low by a significant margin. >>> Second, the 2013 figure was so low that even a small increase will look >>> large when expressed as a percentage. Third, the figure for the following >>> year, 2014, (51 officers killed) was essentially consistent with the >>> average for the previous five years (50 killed), and still lower than any >>> five-year average going back to 1960. ( See this graph, also from Wang.) >>> Fourth, again, 2015 is on pace (35 killings) to be lower than any year but >>> 2013. Another common response from police organizations and their advocates >>> is that the reduction in fatalities is due to better medical care and >>> improvements in protective gear such as bulletproof vests. Both things are >>> undoubtedly true. But assaults on police officers are in decline as well. >>> That is, not only are fewer people killing police officers, fewer people >>> are trying to harm them. These graphs from Stoughton show the raw numbers >>> of assaults on police: >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> As you can see, at best you could argue that assaults on police >>> with firearms are about even with where they’ve been for most of the last >>> decade, save for a dip in 2009 and 2010. But these too are raw figures. >>> When we look at the rate of assault on cops, from either the perspective of >>> total cops or total population, the downward trend once again becomes more >>> pronounced. From Daniel Bier, here are two graphs looking at the assault >>> rates on police officers. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Any murder of a police officer is a tragedy. (As is any murder of >>> a non-police officer.) But media outlets, politicians, and police advocates >>> do real damage when they push this false narrative about a rising threat to >>> law enforcement. First, this sort of propaganda weights the public debate >>> and discourse. When there’s a fictional “war on cops” blaring in the >>> background, it becomes much more difficult to have an honest discussion >>> about police cameras, police militarization, use of lethal force policies, >>> police discipline, police transparency, training, police accountability, >>> and a host of other issues. Of course, that’s precisely the point. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> But there’s also a much more pernicious effect of exaggerating the >>> threats faced by law enforcement. When cops are constantly told that >>> they’re under constant fire, or that every interaction with a citizen could >>> be their last, or that they’re fortunate each time they come home from the >>> job in one piece, it’s absolute poison for police-community relations. That >>> kind of reminder on a regular basis would put anyone on edge. We’re putting >>> police officers in a perpetually combative mindset that psychologically >>> isolates them from the communities they serve. Incessantly telling cops >>> that they’re under fire can condition them to see the people with whom they >>> interact not as citizens with rights, but as potential threats. That not >>> only means more animosity, anger and confrontation, it can also be a >>> barrier to building relationships with people in the community the sorts >>> of relationships that help police officers solve crimes and keep >>> communities safe. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> It also just makes for a miserable work life. If you’ve been >>> trained to think your job is getting progressively more dangerous, and that >>> a significant percentage of the people you encounter on a daily basis want >>> to do you harm, you’re going to be less tolerant of dissent. You’re going >>> to constantly be on-guard, on-edge, and jumpy. That isn’t a state of mind >>> that’s conducive to de-escalation, that opts for persuasion over brute >>> force, or seeks out peaceful conflict resolution. It’s a state of mind >>> ruled by the limbic system, not the frontal lobe. And yes, it’s a state of >>> mind that makes an officer more likely to reach for his gun. Again, this >>> isn’t a comment on cops. It’s a comment on human beings in general. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> An over-emphasis on and obsession with a “war on cops” would be >>> dangerous and counterproductive even if it were true. But by every >>> imaginable measure, it just isn’t true. When this false narrative comes >>> from police organizations and their supporters, it’s at least somewhat >>> understandable. When it comes from politicians, it’s grandstanding and >>> demagoguery. When it comes from media organizations, it’s journalistic >>> malpractice. And it’s almost certainly getting people killed. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> One last point: I’ve seen some police officials and their >>> advocates respond to these statistics by pointing out that even if assaults >>> and killings of cops are down, anti-police rhetoric is increasing. >>> Therefore, they say, they’re justified in proclaiming that there’s a war on >>> the police. This is nonsense. Police agencies are government agencies. >>> They’re government agencies in whom we entrust the power to detain, arrest, >>> and kill. Yes, it’s true that some people are demanding more of those >>> agencies. It’s true that personal technology is enabling people to create >>> an independent video narrative of their interactions with police. It’s true >>> that those videos have sometimes revealed police misconduct and brutality, >>> and that police officers, like all people, sometimes mis-remember, >>> misstate, and outright lie when recounting contentious, traumatic, >>> high-stakes incidents. And it’s true that because of all of this, the >>> public as a whole today finds police officers as a whole less trustworthy >>> than in the past. It’s also true that some activists, pundits, and >>> politicians are demanding more accountability, transparency, and training >>> for police. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> None of these things are indicative of a “war.” On the contrary, >>> all of this new skepticism, criticism, forced transparency, and mistrust of >>> the police is again coming even as violence against police officers is >>> reaching historic lows. This is how a democracy is supposed to work. It’s >>> something worth celebrating. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> Instead, police groups and their advocates are claiming that the >>> mere act of criticizing a government entity is akin to declaring war on it, >>> and that therefore, police critics are culpable every time a police officer >>> is murdered. (And given the way they ignore and abuse statistics, those >>> critics are also apparently culpable for a lot of murders that never >>> happened.) They’re essentially saying that exercising constitutional rights >>> and participating in democracy are in and of themselves acts of violence. >>> And in many cases, this is coming from the very people that the government >>> empowers to use actual violence. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> That is something worth worrying about. >>> >>>>> >>> >>>>> >>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/09/10/once-again-there-is-no-war-on-cops-and-those-who-claim-otherwise-are-playing-a-dangerous-game/ >>> >>>> >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> -- >>> >>>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >>>> For options & help see >>> http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>>> >>> >>>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> >>>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >>>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>>> >>> >>>> --- >>> >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> >>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to [email protected]. >>> >>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >>> >> -- >>> >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >> >>> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >> >>> >> --- >>> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, >>> send an email to [email protected]. >>> >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > -- >>> > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> > >>> > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> > >>> > --- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >>> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >>> >>> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >>> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >>> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "PoliticalForum" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> brine >> http://brineb.blogspot.com/ >> >> -- >> -- >> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. >> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum >> >> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ >> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. >> * Read the latest breaking news, and more. >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "PoliticalForum" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > -- > -- > Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. > For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum > > * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ > * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. > * Read the latest breaking news, and more. > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "PoliticalForum" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- brine http://brineb.blogspot.com/ -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
