Law enforcement fatalities in the United States rose 24 percent in 2014 to 126 and ambush-style attacks were the No. 1 cause of felonious officer deaths for the fifth straight year, according to preliminary data from the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund.
The NLEOMF report said 126 federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial officers were killed in the line of duty this year, compared to 102 in 2013. The number of officers killed by firearms in 2014 -- 50 -- is up 56 percent from the 32 killed last year.
Fifteen officers nationwide were killed in ambush assaults in 2014, and the recent shooting deaths of New York City Police Officers Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos have attracted national attention and contributed to tension between police and the city's elected leaders.
The total of 15 ambush assaults matched 2012 for the highest total since 1995.
The hate war against the police is not directly responsible for most, or perhaps any, of this. At the same time, those insisting that hate has no consequences are lying to themselves and to us.
I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. On the one hand, you say that the so-called "hate war" against the police is not directly responsible for the increase in police deaths in 2014. On the other hand, you say that people who insist that "hate has no consequences" are lying. What, exactly, are the consequences of hate that you're talking about? Are you insinuating that the "media and cultural war on the police" is indirectly responsible for some number of police shootings? If so, how?
It's certainly concerning that the number of shootings increased in 2014, but I would be very careful about linking that to protests or reaction to police-involved shootings. The report doesn't say, for example, what number of the shootings occurred before the Michael Brown incident, for example. Prior to that, it doesn't seem like there was much media attention on perceived police abuses at all, so linking those shootings to some perceived anti-police media campaign would be suspect at best.
- Victor
1. If you are of the view that hate has no consequences, feel free. It was patently clear that Brinsley's unhinged hate of the police motivated his murdering them. And he himself linked his hate to the Garner and Michael Brown cases, which are the cornerstones of the hate campaign. (And you needn't put the phrase hate war in quotation marks to suggest it's really something else. It's hate and you know it).
2. You say that it's "concerning" that there was an increase in the number of cops murdered in 2014, but I wonder about that.
Why do you think it's "concerning"? Have you expressed concern in any way and at any time other than just now in response to my post? When would that have been? And have you actually DONE anything out of this "concern"? Contributed to the fund being established for Officer Ramos's kids' college expenses, maybe? Something else?
3. Forgive my suspicions, but it certainly sounds like your "concern" here is not about cops getting murdered but, to the exact contrary, about downplaying the murders, and implying that hatred of the cops has nothing to do with how cops get treated.
Is that what you think?
I wouldn't be all that surprised. Just the other day, you were telling us that Rolling Stone has no anti-Establishment agenda.
Far out!!!
1. I agree that it seems clear that Brinsley's hatred of police motivated, at least in part, his shootings. It's also clear that Brinsley, who also shot his girlfriend, was at the very least deeply disturbed. If this incident was the "consequences" that you were talking about, why not just spell that out instead of hinting around it?
2. Why do I think it's "concerning" that the number of police shot increased in 2014? Because I don't want to see police officers or anyone else shot. What's hard to understand about that? Are you suggesting that concern is not legitimate if not accompanied by monetary donations?
3. I'm not downplaying any murders. I'm simply pointing out that linking the number of police shootings in a given year to media coverage is suspect. The average number of police killed by gunfire annually since 1994 is 55. This year it's 50. How do you explain the lower-than-average number this year?
Also, I never said that Rolling Stone had no anti-Establishment agenda. I said the primary goal of publishing a magazine is to make money. RS may well have an anti-Establishment agenda (whatever that means), but I didn't speculate on that one way or another.
- Victor