• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

2013 report of LEO who died on the job

MKEgal

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2010
Messages
4,383
Location
in front of my computer, WI
.



The actual report is headed "Law Enforcement Fatalities Dip to Lowest Level in Six Decades" and shows that, as usual, more officers are killed in traffic fatalities than by gunfire.

However, the LA Times piece which reported on this report spent most of the article talking about the shooting deaths.

How about we pay attention to bad driving, which the officers have more control over, and can eliminate more deaths?




.
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
Be prepared for the Drive By Whiner to have a tantrum in here for "bashing".

So. To stay on topic, the NHTSA conducted an analysis of almost 30 years’ worth of crash data and found that 42 percent of all law enforcement officers killed in traffic crashes were not wearing seat belts. The number may actually be higher because NHTSA could not determine whether or not the officer was wearing a seat belt in 13 percent of the cases.

So what's the solution? Jenny Craig for those too obese to fasten their seat belts? Send the rest to a detox to get them off the blue Kool Aid enough to understand their magic blue suit does not defy physics? Or stop a Buick?

Almost 40 percent of the agencies participating in the NHTSA study reported that they did not have policies regarding cell phone use by officers. The same percentage reported that they did not have policies regarding texting by officers. Twenty-five percent reported that an agency-owned vehicle had crashed because of one of these two distracted driving issues.

How many innocent people are killed, maimed or have a loved one ripped from their lives due to this childish irresponsibility of playing with gadgets when they are supposed to be working? Until they get their driving habits squared away, maybe they should be relegated to the Schwinn.

[video=youtube;nGgJsMkcRNA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGgJsMkcRNA&list=FLncaHtYgqOYsdKELPpN4xfQ&index=3[/video]

OK. Maybe not.
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Be prepared for the Drive By Whiner to have a tantrum in here for "bashing".

So. To stay on topic, the NHTSA conducted an analysis of almost 30 years’ worth of crash data and found that 42 percent of all law enforcement officers killed in traffic crashes were not wearing seat belts. The number may actually be higher because NHTSA could not determine whether or not the officer was wearing a seat belt in 13 percent of the cases.

So what's the solution? Jenny Craig for those too obese to fasten their seat belts? Send the rest to a detox to get them off the blue Kool Aid enough to understand their magic blue suit does not defy physics? Or stop a Buick?

Almost 40 percent of the agencies participating in the NHTSA study reported that they did not have policies regarding cell phone use by officers. The same percentage reported that they did not have policies regarding texting by officers. Twenty-five percent reported that an agency-owned vehicle had crashed because of one of these two distracted driving issues.

How many innocent people are killed, maimed or have a loved one ripped from their lives due to this childish irresponsibility of playing with gadgets when they are supposed to be working? Until they get their driving habits squared away, maybe they should be relegated to the Schwinn.

[video=youtube;nGgJsMkcRNA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGgJsMkcRNA&list=FLncaHtYgqOYsdKELPpN4xfQ&index=3[/video]

OK. Maybe not.

Cite?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
.



The actual report is headed "Law Enforcement Fatalities Dip to Lowest Level in Six Decades" and shows that, as usual, more officers are killed in traffic fatalities than by gunfire.

However, the LA Times piece which reported on this report spent most of the article talking about the shooting deaths.

How about we pay attention to bad driving, which the officers have more control over, and can eliminate more deaths?




.

I'm confused about the relevance. Are leos more likely to die in an accident then none leos? Are they more likely to die by guns?

Here's food for thought.... even if there is more non Leo killed by gunshots..... none chose to go to that gun fire or put themselves in harms way. Wrong time wrong place kind of stuff. Yet even the leo traffic accidents. How many were blue lighting going to calls? You know... to help someone else?

Just not sure the whole "oooooo leos did this!!". Why does it matter? Why does it make it any more important or bad? Do leos become less human when they put a uniform on?

How about pizza delivery drivers. How many of them were killed by gun fire and traffic accidents? How many dominos have no cell phone use policies? Fed ex and ups?

Usps is a tax payer funded organization. So how many postal workers text while driving?

See how none of it matters?


Edit:usps

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
Another distraction and deflection. If you have a problem with the NHTSA study either complain to NHTSA or get cops to be better and more attentive drivers. The OP is proffering a study regarding cops and their driving habits conducted by the feds.

When a cop is "blue lighting" I would suspect that that is the one time period where a seat belt would be the first thing that cop decides to use before responding to that call. Higher rates of speed being very likely and thus the severity of injuries if something goes wrong.

You keep focusing on that which was not offered in the op. keep on deflecting and excusing obvious, and admitted, errors in judgement by cops, according to the study. I, for one, have no illusions regarding the level of mediocrity in the driving skills of armed state agents.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
Another distraction and deflection. If you have a problem with the NHTSA study either complain to NHTSA or get cops to be better and more attentive drivers. The OP is proffering a study regarding cops and their driving habits conducted by the feds.

When a cop is "blue lighting" I would suspect that that is the one time period where a seat belt would be the first thing that cop decides to use before responding to that call. Higher rates of speed being very likely and thus the severity of injuries if something goes wrong.

You keep focusing on that which was not offered in the op. keep on deflecting and excusing obvious, and admitted, errors in judgement by cops, according to the study. I, for one, have no illusions regarding the level of mediocrity in the driving skills of armed state agents.

+1 His posts are a matrix of weaved Red Herring, Strawman, call to expertise etc....fallacies.

Notice his slight ad hominem by inferring that non cops don't rush to danger.....I call bull. Many times of danger are stopped by civilians, oddly in my area I noticed a lot of times it's by construction workers who rush to aid. Maybe it's because they are 8 times more likely to die in their jobs than cops and actually face danger head on all the time and don't whine about it and want the public to sympathize with their "plight".

Notice again the usually a cop might die in a traffic stop tactic, again twisted logic, statistically a driver has a tremendously higher percentage of being killed or abused by a cop stopping them.

Why are many of the traffic accidents considered dying "in the line duty", had that argument with PALO a few years ago when a cop ran into a garbage truck, he wasn't chasing anyone just driving. If a roofer gets into a collision driving from one roof to another is that considered in the line of duty of roofing?

He also wants to distract from relevance, because a major relevance is that cops are not that needed, yet year after year them and their unions argue for the theft of more money and for the increase of their ranks and panhandle to the feds for lots of equipment and funding.

If violent crime is down, if cop deaths are down, why are they not downsizing these agencies? Seems to be hugely relevant.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
An anecdote personal; I used to drive a 1970 IH TravelAll 1200D 4x4 - big and not very nimble, used to tow my double-deck trailer of racing sports cars. I was making a proper left at a traffic light when I had to brake hard for two deputies at ~60 mph in boulevard traffic. I was amazed and then pissed when I realized that it was noon.

Downsizing due to mission success? Public servants working themselves out of their sinecure - hah snowflakes in hell!

Have had similar anecdotes, paced a deputy going 55 plus on the 35 mph rd toward my house, by the time I caught up he was at his house bringing a bag groceries up his front steps.

Yep, they sell it as safety and then when it works ( I don't think it has much to do with them) they have to drum up and dramatize every instance to cry out like Oliver for "more please sir"
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
There seems to be a myth being subtly perpetuated that all that matters is "police officer's safety". I'm here to say nothing could be farther from the truth for me. WE are employing the inept and funding activities that create liabilities for ourselves when we place these irresponsible people behind the wheel of vehicles they are not qualified to handle. Let's face it, there's a reason Chimps don't drive in NASCAR. It requires some aptitude, and that doesn't simply come with the desire to work in an occupation.

This reaches much further than the police body count.


Six killed in accident with police squad car.

http://www.10tv.com/content/stories/2013/10/18/columbus-multi-vehicle-accident-riverside-drive.html

Motorcyclist Killed in Police Car Crash

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/1-Injured-in-Accident-with-Police-Car-232439871.html

Pedestrian killed in police officer-involved accident

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/regio...ian-police-officer-involved-in-glendale-crash

Police officers, cabbie injured in SoHo car accident

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york...-car-accident-article-1.1431479#ixzz2pMmqZFTz

And of course, "Isolated Incident" 88, 478:

DAVID BISARD, IND. POLICE OFFICER, CONVICTED OF RECKLESS HOMICIDE, DUI IN FATAL 2010 CRASH


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/david-b...of-reckless-homicide-dui-in-fatal-2010-crash/


I contend we can expect responsible actions from all drivers, blue lights or not. I think a lot of this irresponsible destruction of our tax paid for assets is due to the fantasy of the mythical protective barrier that comes with the magic blue suit. And innocent people are dying from it. Further, who does the investigations into these wrecks and vehicular assaults? More police. The epitome of objectivity, right? How many negligent, irresponsible deaths of police and their victims are chalked up to "unavoidable line of duty" deaths so benefits are assured to survivors in what the rest of the world would call nepotism? Aw, this is a real wicked web that's been weaved, I tell ya.

Some police officers are responsible for themselves and to others, and I'm grateful for them. I'm not sure they are in the majority, though. Go to Google Images and put in "wrecked police car" and be prepared to spend some time at the computer.
 
Last edited:

CT Barfly

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2013
Messages
328
Location
Ffld co.
Uhm...statistically speaking, there's virtually 100% chance that an officer will use a/his cruiser during a tour. Therefore, the chances that he will have an accident with his car are somewhere pretty far north of zero.

Stop trying to compare apples to lobsters.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,452
Location
White Oak Plantation
I've been driving going on 40 years and I have never had a accident, either all by my little ole self or involving another citizen. It is possible to not get into a wreck. Unfortunately cops are exempt from many laws that apply to driving when they are in the pursuit of official business. This is where the issue lies, the fore knowledge that they will likely face little negative consequences for poor driving.
 

JoeSparky

Centurion
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
3,621
Location
Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
+1 His posts are a matrix of weaved Red Herring, Strawman, call to expertise etc....fallacies.

Notice his slight ad hominem by inferring that non cops don't rush to danger.....I call bull. Many times of danger are stopped by civilians, oddly in my area I noticed a lot of times it's by construction workers who rush to aid. Maybe it's because they are 8 times more likely to die in their jobs than cops and actually face danger head on all the time and don't whine about it and want the public to sympathize with their "plight".

Notice again the usually a cop might die in a traffic stop tactic, again twisted logic, statistically a driver has a tremendously higher percentage of being killed or abused by a cop stopping them.

Why are many of the traffic accidents considered dying "in the line duty", had that argument with PALO a few years ago when a cop ran into a garbage truck, he wasn't chasing anyone just driving. If a roofer gets into a collision driving from one roof to another is that considered in the line of duty of roofing?

He also wants to distract from relevance, because a major relevance is that cops are not that needed, yet year after year them and their unions argue for the theft of more money and for the increase of their ranks and panhandle to the feds for lots of equipment and funding.

If violent crime is down, if cop deaths are down, why are they not downsizing these agencies? Seems to be hugely relevant.


For now, this is what I'll say---

It is a restatement of, "If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to have time to do it OVER?"

Restatement is: If it is important that you arrive to help, how does NOT ARRIVING AT ALL because you are dead or injured for YOUR failure to wear a seatbelt help either those in immediate need or YOUR FAMILY AT THE END OF THE DAY?
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
For now, this is what I'll say---

It is a restatement of, "If you don't have time to do the job right the first time, when are you going to have time to do it OVER?"

Restatement is: If it is important that you arrive to help, how does NOT ARRIVING AT ALL because you are dead or injured for YOUR failure to wear a seatbelt help either those in immediate need or YOUR FAMILY AT THE END OF THE DAY?

I actually agree with this 100%. A common thing we say to each other and ourselves is "you've gotta get there first". So when your driving and hyped up going to a bad call its where your partner helps a lot. You are right that getting killed enroute helps no one.

As far as seat belts go.... again. When a guy puts a uniform on he's still just another dude who may not wear his set belt any other time. Its a personal choice. Some departments do have policies about wearing seatbelts. So if your involved in an accident and they pull the black box your screwed especially if you try to lie

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

Fuller Malarkey

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2010
Messages
1,020
Location
The Cadre
I actually agree with this 100%. A common thing we say to each other and ourselves is "you've gotta get there first". So when your driving and hyped up going to a bad call its where your partner helps a lot. You are right that getting killed enroute helps no one.

As far as seat belts go.... again. When a guy puts a uniform on he's still just another dude who may not wear his set belt any other time. Its a personal choice. Some departments do have policies about wearing seatbelts. So if your involved in an accident and they pull the black box your screwed especially if you try to lie

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Probably didn't cover this in mall-cop school:

Massachusetts General Laws

Section 13A. No person shall operate a private passenger motor vehicle or ride in a private passenger motor vehicle, a vanpool vehicle or truck under eighteen thousand pounds on any way unless such person is wearing a safety belt which is properly adjusted and fastened; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to:

(a) any child less than twelve years of age who is subject to the provisions of section seven AA;

(b) any person riding in a motor vehicle manufactured before July first, nineteen hundred and sixty-six;

(c) any person who is physically unable to use safety belts; provided, however, that such condition is duly certified by a physician who shall state the nature of the handicap, as well as the reasons such restraint is inappropriate; provided, further, that no such physician shall be subject to liability in any civil action for the issuance or for the failure to issue such certificate;

(d) any rural carrier of the United States Postal Service operating a motor vehicle while in the performance of his duties; provided, however, that such rural mail carrier shall be subject to department regulations regarding the use of safety belts or occupant crash protection devices;

(e) anyone involved in the operation of taxis, liveries, tractors, trucks with gross weight of eighteen thousand pounds or over, buses, and passengers of authorized emergency vehicles.

(f) the side facing seat on which the factory did not install a seat belt in any car owned for the purpose of antique collection.

Any person who operates a motor vehicle without a safety belt, and any person sixteen years of age or over who rides as a passenger in a motor vehicle without wearing a safety belt in violation of this section, shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars. Any operator of a motor vehicle shall be subject to an additional fine of twenty-five dollars for each person under the age of sixteen and no younger than twelve who is a passenger in said motor vehicle and not wearing a safety belt. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies only when an operator of a motor vehicle has been stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws or some other offense.

Any person who receives a citation for violating this section may contest such citation pursuant to section three of chapter ninety C. A violation of this section shall not be considered as a conviction of a moving violation of the motor vehicle laws for the purpose of determining surcharges on motor vehicle premiums pursuant to section one hundred and thirteen B of chapter one hundred and seventy-five.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section13A

I do not read Police Officers as exempt. I imagine not writing up blue clad offenders falls under the heading of "blue line courtesy".
 

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
Probably didn't cover this in mall-cop school:

Massachusetts General Laws

Section 13A. No person shall operate a private passenger motor vehicle or ride in a private passenger motor vehicle, a vanpool vehicle or truck under eighteen thousand pounds on any way unless such person is wearing a safety belt which is properly adjusted and fastened; provided, however, that this provision shall not apply to:

(a) any child less than twelve years of age who is subject to the provisions of section seven AA;

(b) any person riding in a motor vehicle manufactured before July first, nineteen hundred and sixty-six;

(c) any person who is physically unable to use safety belts; provided, however, that such condition is duly certified by a physician who shall state the nature of the handicap, as well as the reasons such restraint is inappropriate; provided, further, that no such physician shall be subject to liability in any civil action for the issuance or for the failure to issue such certificate;

(d) any rural carrier of the United States Postal Service operating a motor vehicle while in the performance of his duties; provided, however, that such rural mail carrier shall be subject to department regulations regarding the use of safety belts or occupant crash protection devices;

(e) anyone involved in the operation of taxis, liveries, tractors, trucks with gross weight of eighteen thousand pounds or over, buses, and passengers of authorized emergency vehicles.

(f) the side facing seat on which the factory did not install a seat belt in any car owned for the purpose of antique collection.

Any person who operates a motor vehicle without a safety belt, and any person sixteen years of age or over who rides as a passenger in a motor vehicle without wearing a safety belt in violation of this section, shall be subject to a fine of twenty-five dollars. Any operator of a motor vehicle shall be subject to an additional fine of twenty-five dollars for each person under the age of sixteen and no younger than twelve who is a passenger in said motor vehicle and not wearing a safety belt. The provisions of this section shall be enforced by law enforcement agencies only when an operator of a motor vehicle has been stopped for a violation of the motor vehicle laws or some other offense.

Any person who receives a citation for violating this section may contest such citation pursuant to section three of chapter ninety C. A violation of this section shall not be considered as a conviction of a moving violation of the motor vehicle laws for the purpose of determining surcharges on motor vehicle premiums pursuant to section one hundred and thirteen B of chapter one hundred and seventy-five.

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXIV/Chapter90/Section13A

I do not read Police Officers as exempt. I imagine not writing up blue clad offenders falls under the heading of "blue line courtesy".

Lol yea Fuller. The next day I work I'll make sure I cite every guy I see. I'll post a video of a cruiser doing a traffic stop of a another cruiser.

Even better.... how about you come up here get a job as an Leo and pull me over if one day I'm not wearing my seatbelt.

Put up or shut up.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 

PistolPackingMomma

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2011
Messages
1,884
Location
SC
I actually agree with this 100%. A common thing we say to each other and ourselves is "you've gotta get there first". So when your driving and hyped up going to a bad call its where your partner helps a lot. You are right that getting killed enroute helps no one.

As far as seat belts go.... again. When a guy puts a uniform on he's still just another dude who may not wear his set belt any other time. Its a personal choice. Some departments do have policies about wearing seatbelts. So if your involved in an accident and they pull the black box your screwed especially if you try to lie

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

So cops can and do ticket citizens for not wearing their seat belts, citing safety reasons and etc, but cops are allowed personal choice on the matter?
 

Reasonable

New member
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
54
Location
Provo
Where does the context of this thread have anything to do with firearms rights?
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
So cops can and do ticket citizens for not wearing their seat belts, citing safety reasons and etc, but cops are allowed personal choice on the matter?

No, as I said some departments (not speaking for all) will have a specific policy that states you must wear a belt.

I already addressed that by saying said officer would be screwed if he was in an accident and he didn't have a belt on, especially if he lied about it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

Primus

Regular Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2013
Messages
3,939
Location
United States
So do you pull over other cruisers and cite them for not wearing their seatbelts?

Nope. Can't its not a primary offense in ma. So I can't and don't pull non leos over for no belt either.

So I'd have to build reason to stop another Leo conduct a traffic stop then cite them for no belt.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk
 
Top