Cops Kill More Americans Than Iraqi Or Afghan Insurgents

FilmingCops.com reports:

Cops have killed well over 5,000 Americans since 9/11. Many of these killings have occurred during no-knock raids, which have risen by 4000% since the 1980s.

Iraqi insurgents, by comparison, have killed around 3,500 Americans in Iraq since 9/11 in Operation Iraqi “Freedom.”

It is not just Iraq. The number of Americans killed by police also now exceeds the number of Americans killed by Afghan insurgents.

Afghan insurgents have killed around 2,000 Americans in Afghanistan since 9/11 in Operation Enduring “Freedom.”

The police are getting paid with our money to go on shooting sprees and they are killing more of us than the terrorists from whom they “protect” us.

Do not be too surprised.  This data is to be expected; it naturally fits with the fact that the State  uses “counter-terrorism” as a means to oppress and initiate violence against the population.  In fact, you are eight times more likely to be killed by a cop than by an actual “terrorist.”

Domestic violence is two-four times more common among police families than American families in general.

As of 2010 the compared data lifted from Cato’s NPMSRP shows that the reports of police committing sexual assault amounted to more than 2 times the reports in the entire general population.

If officer-involved killings were prosecuted as murder, the murder rate for law enforcement officers would exceed the general population murder rate by at least 472%. And these are only the reported incidents. The vast majority of police misconduct and abuse is unreported. Who knows what the actual total is.

Excerpt from compared data between Cato’s NPMSR and the DOJ’s UCR for police homicide and sexual assault.

While we’re at it, over a quarter of a billion human beings were killed by government last century alone, making government the leading cause of unnatural death in the 20th century.  This doesn’t include casualties from all the wars that governments started to “protect” us.

The number of Americans in prison now exceeds the number of high school teachers and engineers. There are at least 7.3 million Americans locked in captivity or under federal control as you read this, the majority of whom are non-violent (for example, they were caught ingesting a plant that the government claims is “illegal”).

One in 25 Americans were arrested as of 2011. The number may be even higher now.

Friends, don’t listen to anybody who tells you it’s “just a few bad apples.” The whole barrel is rotten.

  • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

    I don’t follow your arithmetic. Iraq and Afghanistan insurgences killed in total 5,500 Americans(according to the numbers you posted) while American Police Officers Killed 5,000. How exactly am I 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist?

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      If you followed the links to the data:

      “The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. ”

      Combat deaths are not deaths from terrorism. Insurgents are enemy combatants, not terrorists.

      The links explain the breakdown in more detail, that’s why they are in the article. Click on them.

      • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

        I still don’t follow. It’s the “War on Terrorism” which to me– an average laymen– would mean that the enemy combatants are terrorists. If in the “War on Terrorism” The United States Government isn’t fighting terrorists then who or what are they fighting? I suppose what your point is that more civilians are killed by the police then the enemy combatants. Which makes logical sense because the war isn’t being fought in the USA, it’s an invasionary force of the US Government. Lets face it, even in Anarcho-Capitalist Law theory there still would be deaths of people from law enforcement because in my understanding of the idea it isn’t an absents of law(as every critic of any Anarchistic theorys say– weather it be syndicalism, Socialism, Communism, Capitalism or Nationalism) it’s just a different idea on how to create and enforce said laws. Which would mean that the only difference would be that instead of a State sanctioned laws and police killing people there would be Corporations(for lack of a better word) who would have private(if you can call it that) laws and police killing people. Am I getting this right?

        • chemicalengineer53

          The important part is “civilians”
          Soldiers are not civilians, although they are Americans. So, slightly more Americans are killed by terrorists than cops, but the number of American civilians killed by terrorists post 9/11 rounds to zero.
          Regarding An-Cap law enforecment, the vast majority of “crime” in the US is drug related. As drug production, supply and consumption are not criminalised, nor pursued in An-Cap, there is a consequential vast reduction in “crime” rate and related police activity and spending. This is compounded by the restoration of the family following the decriminalisation of peaceful activities such as drug taking and gun ownership, which reduces the number of criminal-minded individuals, who are essentially the product of single motherhood and the govenrment.
          Consider that private law enforcement has an enormous profit motive to avoid deaths and general tyranny; would you hire protection from someone with a track record of murder?

          • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

            I don’t know if under anarcho-capitalism that the law enforcement agencies’ would be responsible for less deaths. Consider that theses law enforcements have territorial disputes and engage in Mafia wars(for lack of a better term) over trying to raise their profits. The doing of which might as well be statism. It has been said that the State is an army of the Capitalist tyranny or vice versa depending on you perspective. Which is one of the reasons I don’t fall into line with the Anarcho-caps. That and Capitalisms ineffecient resource distribution methods. Something like 80% of resources under our current capitalist system gets used up by the 20% of the wealthiest(which is where the fear of overpopulation steams from, we’re not overpopulated State Sanction Capitalism causes a false scarcity). I will grant that under an anarchist system capitalism would function differently. Would it be better, that’d be hard to say. I personally think that kropotkins idea on mutual aid and cooperation would be a better system, but then again I’m fairly bias.

          • chemicalengineer53

            >Capitalism
            You keep using that word, it does not mean what you think it means.
            The West is a Socialist empire. Everyone creams thier pants about how “we” won the second world war, but this is factually incorrect. We fought against the National Socialists (Nazis), but instead of seing Socialism for the evil that it is we adopted it, hook, line and sinker. The Nazis won WWII
            Essentially, you cannot use today’s US to discredit capitalism. The only area which remains vaguely capitalistic is computing, and look what the case is there; better and better products, for an ever decreasing price.
            As to efficiency, in an-cap, the most efficient organisation wins. This means falling prices and better service. Violence is extremely inefficient (consider the meagre productivity of slaves vs free workers), therefore any organisation attempting to use violence goes out of business very quickly.

          • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

            Haha nice Princess Bride quote.The funny thing about words is that each person has their own way to define them. Consider a house, we each will both picture in our minds a different house. Same thing with Capitalism, Socialism, Nazism etc. each person has a different image of those things in their head. For example I define Socialism as where the workers working a store or factory, are the owners of the store or factory. Which if we use my definition we see that to me the west isn’t a Socialist Empire. We use yours, which please forgive me if I’m wrong, is a Government controlled economy. Which if that is how you define it I can see why you would think that the west is a Socialist Empire. The disconnection is I think no accident, but a deliberate attempt to create a division in the revolutionary thinkers by those who control the media, they have the power to change words and what they mean, look no future than the eerily similar to Orwells Newspeak, Hashtag. If we can’t agree, then we can’t cause the change that we want Id est disbandment of Stateism. Maybe I’ve just read to much Noam Chomksy……

          • chemicalengineer53

            Socialism is the non-voluntary redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor. Words have very specific meanings, unfortunately, the government owns the language, and is able to alter or obfuscate the meanings in the minds of the public.
            .
            Your definition of Socialism is just a particular case, which can occur under socialism or an-cap. The difference is, under communism (a subset of socialism), no one is allowed to own a share in the factory, without being a worker there, which is clear and utter nonsense.
            .
            Nothing stops workers collectively building a factory and owning a share in it in an-cap, apart from possibly market forces in the form of managerial inexperience.
            .
            Finally, you did not address the statement that the vast majority of “crime” today is wiffle which the government makes up to buy votes and terrorize the population, e.g. drug prohibition, anti-prostitution laws, equality laws, etc etc ad nauseum

          • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

            “Socialism is the non-voluntary redistribution of wealth from the wealthy to the poor” You see my friend, these kind of statements is what I’m talking about. The point isn’t for us to argue over the semantics of one or two particular words are, for if we do we’ll never agree. The whole thing is those in the center of the isle want the revolutionarys to not be united. For the revolutionary left as well as the right(at least to me) both have the eyes to see the horrible truths of the world, which are the drug prohibition, anti-prostitution which you talk about. “Modern day prohibition. Are we men, or are we children? at what age can I choose how to live?” as the Poet Fat Mike would say. To wrap it up I’ll just say that the right and the left both want the same thing, we’re just divided because our explanations are in different linguistic sets.

          • chemicalengineer53

            I’m not arguing over semantics, I’m explaining to you what socialism is, why it is evil, and why what you think is socialism is actually just a situation that could occur under a number of ideologies.
            If I claimed that integration by parts was a way of finding the product of two numbers, that is factually wrong, and it would not be semantics to argue otherwise.
            .
            I agree that the left and the right both want the same thing; more government. The left wants more tyranny in the form of “equality”, which is really just female entitlement ad infinitum and through the strengthening of “workers rights” and shit like that, while the right wants more tyranny under the guise of puritanical “morality” through measures such as bans on drugs and prostitution.
            .
            Ironically, both “sides” (there is only one spectrum; more tyranny to less tyranny) are very pro-blowing up brown people, which used to be a Conservative fetish. See Obomba’s recent attempt to liberate the shit out of the Syrians.

          • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

            Plato describes opinions as beliefs grounded in illusions.

          • chemicalengineer53

            …ok? I’m not sure what the rhetorical ramblings of a long-dead statist have to do with the definition of Socialism. 2+2=4 is not an opinion.

          • Semi-Aquatic Anthropoids

            You’re not doing math, you are proposing opinions as if they are knowledge. Everything you’ve said is a parroting of the Sophists Subjectivism. You spouted nothing which is original or worth reading, jump the dividing line.