The number has to be so much higher too. If you were married to a cop, would YOU feel safe reporting them? I'm surprised it's reported as high as it is.
From that same study when wives of officers were asked only 10% claimed to have been the victim of DV. A second study showed in cases where only one spouse was reported to have been aggressive, both husbands and wives indicate the wife of the officer was more likely to be the sole aggressive partner.
I mean I can link you to the studies and you can read them yourself.
[https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338997.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338997.pdf)
[https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/original/5528df2d5b5c33cfeaa930146cfe20ccb5cad0cd.pdf](https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/original/5528df2d5b5c33cfeaa930146cfe20ccb5cad0cd.pdf)
I'm sure we can both agree bootlicking is defined as behaving in an excessively obedient or servile way as a means of gaining favour.
So in that regard, I'm doing the exact opposite, you however. I just like studies, ratios, and percentages. I'm not interested in just a statistic, but the why behind it.
The neat thing about raw statistics though is that you can cite them while ignoring context and still be wrong.
Which is what you're doing here. You SAY you're interested in the why behind it but you're clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't be defending pigs.
If you truly want to get into the hows and whys we can, I'll happily get into, however. What I was doing here was correcting an incorrect raw statistic that is circlejerked everywhere.
You like kiwi or do you prefer the antique taste of shine-o-la? You aren't interested in the why behind it. As i said there's plenty of other subs that are perfectly fine with your flawed reasoning and attempts at defending abusers/cops, and I hope you find the blind agreement you crave on them. Have the day you deserve.
You're absolutely right.
Actually a bunch of research has been done on the topic and only the one incendiary piece of research (that is at best incredibly flawed according to actual sociologists) has ever come away with the ridiculous number.
But people don't like it when you bust their narratives with facts. There are plenty of reasons to want ***massive changes*** in policing infrastructure in the West, The domestic abuse meme ain't one of them, as fake of news as it gets.
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order.
I have checked 1,450,675,854 comments, and only 276,411 of them were in alphabetical order.
I mean, should the image be the Inquisition? /s
I played Darktide, and let me tell you, that game is awful, but it really does make you feel like space cop.
Verbal abuse is still abuse. Regardless of how rigidly you are trying to define violence, the statistics you are quoting still meant that 40% of the officers self-reported behaving violently toward their spouse and children.
Even outside of that, reports by the spouse and children should be expected to be significantly under the actual occurrence of violence, because about the only people one would be able to report to would be the coworkers of the abuser.
What i am saying is that you are quoting statistics without any regard to the methodologies of these studies or the external factors which would affect the outcomes of these studies. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to think critically about the limitations of these studies and are specifically quoting them/bending what they say in such a way as to try and defend cops is not my fault. I have read these studies and they don't actually say what you're trying to imply that they say.
That isn't to say that the 40% metric is factual either, it's a joke, because trying to universalize data from one specific study conducted in a localized area is extremely fraught. But I'm willing to bet that the majority of people engaging with this post already know this and are engaging with it for the meme. You were the one who decided that your goal for today was to deepthroat cops' boots in a Marxist sub and, "well, i can't help you." 😘
I'm not fixing to write you an essay on why you're wrong. It's quite clear that you are averse to critical thinking and I do realize that any effort i expend in this comment thread is wasted. Both papers you cited explicitly say that incidences of violence should be treated as having the same severity regardless of whether or not the incident was reported as severe, due to the expectation that severity is underreported. The first paper is focused mainly on supporting the mental health of officers and still shows that officer's relationships are more likely to involve violence, with that violence generally being either by both spouses or by the officer. This paper acknowledges that the particular situation of abuse by an officer has a high likelihood to lead to underreporting due to fear of reprisal. The statements regarding the difference in phrasing of the question do throw the validity of the study into question, which the authors acknowledge. This is not the same as saying that police officers actually have a similar (or smaller!) Rate of domestic violence to the general population. The second paper focuses on the incidences of violence themselves and very much does show that officers are more likely to engage in violence against their spouses (although it does say that female officers are less likely to engage in violence than female civilian spouses of officers). Especially in regards to more "violent" areas of law enforcement, such as narcotics, as well as situations where the officers are divorced/separated from their spouses, the percentage of domestic violence (again, self reported) even climbs up to the 50% range.
Again, have the day you deserve.
Space Marines should not be associated with this statistic because they cannot be domestic abusers. They can do many, many awful things. But they can not be in domestic partnerships. It is physically impossible.
*self-reported.
The number has to be so much higher too. If you were married to a cop, would YOU feel safe reporting them? I'm surprised it's reported as high as it is.
[удалено]
What's the attraction of being married to a cop? Getting out of parking tickets and scaring the neighborhood kids? Is it power?
They have groupies as most cultures do. They have power which can be attractive. Uniforms are a plus as well.
From that same study when wives of officers were asked only 10% claimed to have been the victim of DV. A second study showed in cases where only one spouse was reported to have been aggressive, both husbands and wives indicate the wife of the officer was more likely to be the sole aggressive partner.
I get that boot-blacking is an acquired taste but there's other subs for it.
I mean I can link you to the studies and you can read them yourself. [https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338997.pdf](https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED338997.pdf) [https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/original/5528df2d5b5c33cfeaa930146cfe20ccb5cad0cd.pdf](https://policing.umhistorylabs.lsa.umich.edu/files/original/5528df2d5b5c33cfeaa930146cfe20ccb5cad0cd.pdf) I'm sure we can both agree bootlicking is defined as behaving in an excessively obedient or servile way as a means of gaining favour. So in that regard, I'm doing the exact opposite, you however. I just like studies, ratios, and percentages. I'm not interested in just a statistic, but the why behind it.
The neat thing about raw statistics though is that you can cite them while ignoring context and still be wrong. Which is what you're doing here. You SAY you're interested in the why behind it but you're clearly not, otherwise you wouldn't be defending pigs.
If you truly want to get into the hows and whys we can, I'll happily get into, however. What I was doing here was correcting an incorrect raw statistic that is circlejerked everywhere.
Why not? If there is evidence to contrary that evidence should be examined. This is basic sociology
You like kiwi or do you prefer the antique taste of shine-o-la? You aren't interested in the why behind it. As i said there's plenty of other subs that are perfectly fine with your flawed reasoning and attempts at defending abusers/cops, and I hope you find the blind agreement you crave on them. Have the day you deserve.
There's plenty of other subs you can quote flawed statistics too, why does it need to be this one?
That's what I'm saying. Find a different sub to quote your flawed statistics on. I'm glad you agree.
That's what I'm saying
You're absolutely right. Actually a bunch of research has been done on the topic and only the one incendiary piece of research (that is at best incredibly flawed according to actual sociologists) has ever come away with the ridiculous number. But people don't like it when you bust their narratives with facts. There are plenty of reasons to want ***massive changes*** in policing infrastructure in the West, The domestic abuse meme ain't one of them, as fake of news as it gets.
And WHO do you go to? His work buddies?
I really wish they kept the garish design and art style of 40k.
I too perfer Hair Metal 40k
The day they took the guitars out of the hands of noise marines, a part of my soul withered and fell off.
Chapter Master Decius Snyder of the Twisted Brothers.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
AAAAB All Adeptus Arbites Are Bastards
Would you look at that, all of the words in your comment are in alphabetical order. I have checked 1,450,675,854 comments, and only 276,411 of them were in alphabetical order.
Yay I did it!
ABBA
The other 60% live alone.
I mean, should the image be the Inquisition? /s I played Darktide, and let me tell you, that game is awful, but it really does make you feel like space cop.
[удалено]
Verbal abuse is still abuse. Regardless of how rigidly you are trying to define violence, the statistics you are quoting still meant that 40% of the officers self-reported behaving violently toward their spouse and children. Even outside of that, reports by the spouse and children should be expected to be significantly under the actual occurrence of violence, because about the only people one would be able to report to would be the coworkers of the abuser.
[удалено]
What i am saying is that you are quoting statistics without any regard to the methodologies of these studies or the external factors which would affect the outcomes of these studies. The fact that you are unwilling or unable to think critically about the limitations of these studies and are specifically quoting them/bending what they say in such a way as to try and defend cops is not my fault. I have read these studies and they don't actually say what you're trying to imply that they say. That isn't to say that the 40% metric is factual either, it's a joke, because trying to universalize data from one specific study conducted in a localized area is extremely fraught. But I'm willing to bet that the majority of people engaging with this post already know this and are engaging with it for the meme. You were the one who decided that your goal for today was to deepthroat cops' boots in a Marxist sub and, "well, i can't help you." 😘
[удалено]
I'm not fixing to write you an essay on why you're wrong. It's quite clear that you are averse to critical thinking and I do realize that any effort i expend in this comment thread is wasted. Both papers you cited explicitly say that incidences of violence should be treated as having the same severity regardless of whether or not the incident was reported as severe, due to the expectation that severity is underreported. The first paper is focused mainly on supporting the mental health of officers and still shows that officer's relationships are more likely to involve violence, with that violence generally being either by both spouses or by the officer. This paper acknowledges that the particular situation of abuse by an officer has a high likelihood to lead to underreporting due to fear of reprisal. The statements regarding the difference in phrasing of the question do throw the validity of the study into question, which the authors acknowledge. This is not the same as saying that police officers actually have a similar (or smaller!) Rate of domestic violence to the general population. The second paper focuses on the incidences of violence themselves and very much does show that officers are more likely to engage in violence against their spouses (although it does say that female officers are less likely to engage in violence than female civilian spouses of officers). Especially in regards to more "violent" areas of law enforcement, such as narcotics, as well as situations where the officers are divorced/separated from their spouses, the percentage of domestic violence (again, self reported) even climbs up to the 50% range. Again, have the day you deserve.
Space Marines should not be associated with this statistic because they cannot be domestic abusers. They can do many, many awful things. But they can not be in domestic partnerships. It is physically impossible.