I feel like she should have know the difference

Point of fact, Zaklog: Men cops are more likely to shoot people than women cops. She should lose her badge (obvious incompetence) and then we should hire A LOT MORE female cops.

source: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854807313995?journalCode=cjbb

Well, considering I'm not paying to read that, so I can't examine it, and that I know for a fact that social "science" is largely garbage, I'm not going to take that seriously.

"I'm not reading it, so it's garbage"? Try harder, my dear.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2020/06/18/women-police-officers-violence/

https://rc.library.uta.edu/uta-ir/bitstream/handle/10106/18/umi-uta-1610.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

And you can read them and refute them with decent facts, or you can recognize that your earlier comment was counter to the facts.

Try giving me a source that isn't constantly publishing vile, slanderous garbage.

""I'm not reading it, so it's garbage""

Not what I said, you lying shit.

Older, Hispanic women cops for the best outcome.

Do you understand the obvious common sense reason why anyone could see that women police will use their guns more often than men?

I mean, maybe there are other factors that balance that out, but do you understand why that should be the obvious first conclusion? Because if not, you're too stupid to participate in this, or, frankly, any real conversation.

Ooh, and you had three comments before you called me "stupid". A definite improvement. I'm rooting for you.

I keep hearing how more intelligent liberals are to conservative (I can send you links if you want), yet you can't follow, deflect, and run from a opportunity to engage in civil discourse.

C'mon man, I rooting for you.

Not a deflection: I'm most sincerely rooting for everyone to improve their skills of civilized debate. You too!

You keep telling yourself that, and in the meantime, your comment above speak for itself.

Did you notice that "if"? That's what called a conditional statement. That means you're only stupid *if* you fail that test. However, your apparent lack of reading comprehension does not give me great hope for your intelligence.

IF your then is always "You're stupid", then you're ready to call a lot of people stupid, which I'm going to name as a poor debating tactic.

A lot of people are stupid. Frankly, compared to me, the majority of the human race is kind of stupid. I have a pretty good idea of my IQ, and the percentage at the same level or higher isn't large.

Intelligence isn't a fixed quantity. We all continue to grow and evolve throughout our lives, and since there are many different ways to be intelligent, there are always people who are better and worse than us at everything.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss other people's intelligence.

I offered you a simple test. So far, you have failed it with flying colors.

Right back at you, champ. I gave you your choice of fact-based articles to read, and you found a reason to refuse each one, calling them "garbage" and me "filth". This is not how you hold a rational discussion.

I invited you to present alternate factual sources to debate. You haven't, so far. In debate circles, that pretty much counts as stipulating to the facts I presented, so thanks for that.

If you're so proud of your brains, use them! Calling names doesn't work.

“Fact based”? When they’re among the outlets that viciously slandered Nick Sandmann & the Covington Catholic kids? And you call that lying scum “fact based”?

It took almost no effort for ordinary people online to find out that story was a lie, but your “fact based” journalists, whose JOB it is supposed to be to discover and report the truth, happily passed on the vicious lie.

F—k them.

I notice you failed to answer the question. This does not speak well of your intelligence.

Yes, just look how great Mexico is for law and order.

Do you ever, for even one moment, compare these academic conclusions to the real world?

Also, they are drawn from quantifiable observations of the real world. Social science by the scientific method, not woozy hippie stuff.

The same "scientific method" that approved the "dog park rape" paper? They're ideological garbage. They are wildly unbalanced politically, and that has destroyed any possible pretense of objectivity.

You're not offering a good source of politically neutral facts we can discuss in their place . . .

You don’t honestly think the social science academy and the Washington Post are “politically neutral,” do you?

I acknowledge their center-left bias, AND assert that as reputable journalistic and academic organizations, they are accountable. You haven't given any sources that can be examined, so you effectively accept the facts that I have presented. And yes, it is hard to have a real discussion with someone who is swearing and calling people stupid continually, but I try.

"AND assert that as reputable journalistic and academic organizations, they are accountable."

Look, if you want me to stop calling you stupid, stop saying stupid things.

How, exactly, is a left-wing social "scientist" held accountable if he publishes left-wing ideological garbage that later turns out to be completely false? How? Be specific please.

REPUTABLE academic publications go through a peer-review process, where others in the field try to replicate, challenge, refute and refine their thinking. That doesn't mean no one is ever wrong in those publications: it just means, as with the legitimate journalistic world, errors tend to get caught.

Good journalistic institutions (like the NYT, and, yes, the WaPo) try to catch their errors and be transparent about them.

Yes, they are both center left (and you can't claim that all of academia is -- that's way too broad and ignorant a brush) but that doesn't mean they're "left-wing ideological garbage".

So far, all your arguments against them have been this sort of unsubstantiated statement, offered because you believe it. That holds no water in a rational argument. Bring evidence. Offer alternate sources close to as credible as our national paper of record. Right now, you are making the argument that you don't accept those sources because they don't confirm your preconceptions -- an inherently irrational, ANTI-rational argument.

“ REPUTABLE academic publications go through a peer-review process, where others in the field try to replicate, challenge, refute and refine their thinking.”

I don’t think you know how peer review actually goes.

I offered you a simple common sense test. Now, common sense may be wrong, but if you can't even rise to that level, you're not capable of participating in a real discussion.

What is the obvious, common sense reason we might guess that women police officers are more likely to use their guns than men? It's not hard to understand. Maybe other factors outweigh it, but it's a real question.

I'll bet Mexico has an even worse male-to-female ratio of police than we do. Now, read, please!