News stories of officers being attacked and killed while in the line of duty have become regular features of the nightly news broadcast, but does this increase in coverage reflect an increase in reality? My analysis suggests no.
A count of stories of police officers killed in the line of duty shows that media attention to these killings has increased dramatically since the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Between one-third and one-half of all of the news stories that the legacy networks (ABC, CBS, NBC) have done on this topic over the last 10 years have appeared in the last year. Fox News has run more stories on this topic this year than it did over the four previous years combined.
Actual incidences of fatal violence against police officers perpetrated by civilians, however, have not been on the rise. Data on police officer deaths compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund shows that the year since Michael Brown’s death has not been especially dangerous for police officers, at least when it comes to the danger of being maliciously attacked by another person. According to the National Law Enforcement Memorial Fund’s data, in the year following Brown’s death, 43 police officers were shot and killed, which is significantly less than the average of 54 police officer shooting per year over the last 10 years. Looking back even further, policing is much safer now than any time in the last 45 years.
You can read the rest @
http://www.psmag.com/books-and-culture/violence-against-police-is-near-a-45-year-low-but-you-wouldnt-know-that-from-watching-the-news
So, why do police think they need to be armed to the teeth?
And why do their rules of engagement seem to be "shoot first, and don't worry about the consequences"?
No comments:
Post a Comment