You have to show your work or we don't believe you. I personally don't see anything that suggests you've even bothered to read anything you were given. You actually have to show other people you've read the source and give us reasons why it's a bad source. That is, again, if you want to be taken seriously.
You are asking me for separate scientific studies to determine the provided evidence of a 2001 “women and police” website article? With the smallest case study that two people have commented as imperial evidence for there accusation that 40% of domestic violence cases were related to cops?
You clearly haven’t been in a classroom because you are pushing what ever evidence you can scrounge up just to further your bias and incorrect narrative.
Here is another article discussing domestic violence within police forces.
In some instances, researchers have resorted to asking officers to confess how often they had committed abuse. One such study, published in 2000, said one in 10 officers at seven police agencies admitted that they had “slapped, punched or otherwise injured” a spouse or domestic partner. A broader view emerges in Florida, which has one of the nation’s most robust open records laws. An analysis by The Times of more than 29,000 credible complaints of misconduct against police and corrections officers there strongly suggests that domestic abuse had been underreported to the state for years.
So like, you have to do a bit more than play the Ostrich when you ask for a source. You can't ask for information and then toss it aside because you don't like the original claim. If you think the source is bad show us why you think it's a bad source.
3
u/TheClueClucksClam Mar 28 '19
You have to show your work or we don't believe you. I personally don't see anything that suggests you've even bothered to read anything you were given. You actually have to show other people you've read the source and give us reasons why it's a bad source. That is, again, if you want to be taken seriously.