Ocelotsix

I am not saying police misconduct does not happen...it does. I am just saying that the provided statistics are clearly slanted towards the point the author is trying to convey. Like comparing the conviction of police officers in 2009 to civilian convictions in 2004. Why didn't they compare the statistics of the same year? Is it because the numbers are less favorable to compare the statistics in 2004 or 2009? I am not defending police officers who commit crimes...they should be fired and prosecuted if possible. But please don't be blinded by poor stats.

What up from Fremont, Ohio. Been riding only a couple years now, and looking to learn from some of the vets!

What is your experience with firearms? Do you own any? If not, I would get out there and shoot some. Everyone can recommend their favorites, but that doesn't mean that gun will fit you. Some guns, such as Glock, are very user friendly for beginners. Shoot what is comfortable for you both price wise and shooting wise, and have fun shooting whatever you buy.

Well, I hate for this to be my first post, but I feel it needs to be brought to people's attention. I could tear that graphic apart. First, notice the graphic is done in red. Red is a color typically associated with violence. Why are they not using different colors for different levels of misconduct? Also, it appears as though the majority of states are the 0-6 category...and how many of those states are 0? It does not specify. Also, These stats cover reported misconduct. Anyone can report misconduct, that doesn't mean the misconduct actually happened. A more accurate graphic would only include convictions, or at least reports which have been affirmed. Also, to compare the average conviction rate of police officers to the average conviction rates of civilians is kinda funny. Conviction of what? Misconduct? I could go on. Folks, the point here is, don't believe everything you see. Especially a graphic from a website dedicated to cop bashing which is finded by the NAACP and other such agencies.