You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist

http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist

by Argentum01 • 13 years ago

147 62 13 years ago

Here is PDF original source for Author's statistics is referencing [ http://www.start.umd.edu/start/announcements/BackgroundRepor... ]. Of a particular interest is bar graph on the bottom of the second page. Ironically it comes out to about: US citizens are

eight and a half times

less likely to die due to terrorism on US soil (Before and after war on terror). That is just what statistics can do if you take any two numbers and start doing "science" with them. As far as I can tell the statistics author quotes actually compiled from different sources, which makes it even more questionable. I do not doubt the number provided by author is correct, however I just demonstrated that correctness is not enough, you need to treat your data and questions you ask of that data carefully in order to come up with something useful.

Original post below:

_________________________

There is a lie, there is a bold lie, and there is statistics.

These are only a few variables that might contribute to that number:

1. There are actually vastly more cops compared to terrorists.

2. Terrorists do not discriminate targets. Cops usually have a very specific set of people they are targeting (I.E. carrying guns and shooting at other people/gangs).

3. How many of those people killed by cops, were trying to shoot back? Terrorists usually kill people who do not fight back.

I am all up for this kind of statistics, however this one seems a bit sensationalist.

jrs992• 13 years ago

did you read the article?

TrainedMonkey7• 13 years ago

Yes, any specific point you are trying to raise?

Anechoic2• 13 years ago

Cops usually have a very specific set of people they are targeting (I.E. carrying guns and shooting at other people/gangs).

Or any variation of "fits the description."

3. How many of those people killed by cops, were trying to shoot back? Terrorists usually kill people who do not fight back.

Wikipedia to the rescue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce... (killings are broken down by year, month and incidents)

chc• 13 years ago

That list doesn't seem to answer the question "How many of those people killed by cops were trying to shoot back?"

TrainedMonkey7• 13 years ago

Here is small sample of that data. I went through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce... and counted incidents by hand:

attack: 8

feeling + weapons: 1

fleeing: 2^

weapons: 6

mistake: 3*

^ - cop charged with manslaughter

* - a robbery suspect lied about a gun. - mistook cell phone for a gun. - pulled out toy submachinegun

a. This adds up to 20, so I missed one. I got no idea which one.

b. Allegedly every mistake killing had at least one mitigating circumstance (And only case of a guy just fleeing and being shot got cop charged with manslaughter).

I did a quick perusal of other months in 2012, and they look similar. According to wikipedia cops killed 587 people in 2012 [1], at the same time 120-127 cops were killed [2]. If pattern established in my quick count holds, then a U.S. cop is more likely to be killed than kill somebody who: does not flee from or point things at cops (especially things that might look like guns).

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_police_officer...

P.S. I am really floored this is how numbers worked out. I would love detailed analysis/count/breakdown of these killing by law enforcement numbers.

Joister• 13 years ago

1. doesn't matter. The point is the relative danger that each group poses to an individual.

Daniel_Newby• 13 years ago

Cops usually have a very specific set of people they are targeting ...

Red cars, teenagers, people posessing this week's prohibited victimless drug, people failing to stop while under quota, skateboarders, etc.

msandford• 13 years ago

True, but the whole point is that the cops are a bigger danger to life and limb (and perhaps liberty) than terrorists. But ask 100 people on the street which is a bigger danger and you'd probably conclude (at least from their answers) terrorism.

That means that society is improperly calibrated to actually reducing mortality and there's no better way to recalibrate than some kind of sensationalist headline that really makes the point.

Crito4• 13 years ago

Two things that people are horrible at reasoning about, probably for biological reasons: Really massive numbers. Really really small numbers.

It only gets worse when you throw in something emotionally charged, like risk. Humans are absolutely awful at evaluating risk rationally.

Consider the standard HN example of robotic cars that are safer by an order or magnitude or two than human-piloted cars. The first time somebody will be killed by a robotic car (and it will happen eventually) the public will be calling for heads on a platter, even though the robotic cars are safer than human-piloted cars that kill hundreds every day.

AnimalMuppet• 13 years ago

Also note that the cops are in much more danger of life and limb than the rest of us. That is, the cops get to confront the creeps so that most of us don't have to most of the time. Some of those creeps are armed, violent, and not inclined to cooperate with the cops. This leads to cops often being in situations where, if they're a half-second late in shooting, they're dead. If they're a half-second early, they're villified, suspended and charged with manslaughter.

We're asking them to do the impossible, and they're coming close to doing it. I get the bit about trying to recalibrate the public's perception of risk, but don't make them freak out about the cops to make your point.

jamesaguilar• 13 years ago

And the counterpoint is that they may not actually be the bigger danger, unless you are involved in the commission of a crime. Well. It depends on what you mean by "danger to life and limb". Do you mean, "For the average person?" Or do you mean, "For a particular person?"

The problem with "the average person" is that such a thing does not really exist. So the answer to the question may not be informative. I think most people, when reading this headline, probably think that it is claiming they are more likely to die from the police than terrorism. Unless you are a criminal, that may not be true (depending on P(criminal|killed by cop)), and it's not possible to estimate that based on data in the article, if it's the same article I've seen before.

vacri• 13 years ago

True, but the whole point is that the cops are a bigger danger to life and limb (and perhaps liberty) than terrorists.

Only if you look at it simplistically. Terrorists on the streets don't really stop other crime, whereas cops do. Some drunks having a fight outside a bar at closing time? Having terrorists around won't help.

pbhjpbhj• 13 years ago

It’s been quickly retweeted dozens of times, indicating that the idea is interesting to many people. //

Never thought of tweets as MVPs for blog posts before.

ZenPro2• 13 years ago

How many police officers conduct mass casualty attacks causing maximum loss of life?

How many terrorist atrocities are foiled, preventing statisticians from incorporating them into the sample?

This is the equivalent of saying "You are 8 times more likely to be killed in car crash by debris than going through the windscreen."

Yes. Only because the seatbelt exists.

Similarly, the only reason terrorist deaths are so low is because of the phenomenal amount of resources we dedicate to the detection and prevention of terrorism.

DannyBee2• 13 years ago

"Similarly, the only reason terrorist deaths are so low is because of the phenomenal amount of resources we dedicate to the detection and prevention of terrorism."

You are going to need to offer actual proof of this, because it doesn't at all follow from anything you said.

(and is unrelated to the statistics in the article).

In fact, i'd bet it's just the opposite. You spend a phenomenal amount of resources preventing a very small amount of loss of life.

(and nothing the FBI or other agencies have offered in response to requests for "foiled terrorist plots" seems to dispute this at all)

ZenPro2• 12 years ago

It follows exactly what I have said. The statistics in the article are not relate to anything either.

Whether the deaths from terrorism are low in comparison to other phenomena is not the issue.

My statement was that "the only reason [edit]deaths from terrorism[/edit] are so low is because of the phenomenal amount of resources we dedicate to the detection and prevention of terrorism."

A truth which is self-evident.

If proof is required we can simply compare and contrast with nation states who do not have technological or economic resources of the US or UK and who are facing a terrorist threat of similar dimensions.

There is nothing more to prove here. The article is nonsense, it is fallacious correlation and simply clickbait.

tn13• 13 years ago

Well we need to condition that probability on "while you are doing something perfectly normal".

anonymoushn• 13 years ago

I hear people get executed in Bart stations for no reason, but not by terrorists.

Florin_Andrei• 13 years ago

I wouldn't trust the Cato "Institute" with providing the result of 1 + 1, let alone a whole study.

rpmartz• 13 years ago

Why? It's fairly obvious where their predilection lies. Have they exhibited a track record of less-than-reputable analyses? (Honest question, not trolling)

briandh• 13 years ago

Why? I mean, on economic issues I can understand the mistrust, but I'm curious to know what kind of Shadowy Business Interest might be behind a post such as this.

Also, BTW, it's not a "study", it's just a blog post.

iansimon• 13 years ago

This is an abuse of probability. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.

azakai• 13 years ago

Without some notion of absolute numbers, the comparison is pointless.

Last I heard, both of those causes of death are almost negligible compared to things like heart disease, cancer, and car accidents. So I have some doubt about this statement by the author

The point of the quote is to focus people on sources of mortality society-wide, because this focus can guide public policy efforts at reducing death.

With that said, yes, people are irrationally afraid of death by terrorism. But comparing that to their chance of death by cop is not illustrative. Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant.

baddox2• 13 years ago

I think using the example of police officers is apt, because police officers can be thought of as a countermeasure to terrorists (and other lawbreakers). I don't think this article really lets the argument take form, but I think it's important to note that the actions which are supposedly intended to combat terrorism are themselves more harmful than terrorism itself.

jasallen• 13 years ago

Since police are also there to combat murderers, gang members, drunk drivers, etc, your statement does not even begin to become valid unless police numbers are put against terrorists plus all those other groups. It's total nonsense.

AndrewKemendo• 13 years ago

Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant.

Not really. The increases in LEA capabilities and militarized tactics took a massive leap post 9/11 largely based on the idea of preventing terrorism. If those impacts are now causing more harm than the thing they are intended to prevent, then there is a clear problem and highlighting it shows that such a response is wrongheaded.

The other causes of death in this case are not relevant at all to the point, however the broader approach would advocate that the more frequent causes of death should be addressed before other less probable causes of death.

danenania• 13 years ago

It's relevant because a vastly expanded police presence has been erected in response to terrorism, but police are statistically more dangerous to the population than terrorists.

If we want to stop terrorism without trading it for something worse, we need to deal with the root of the problem: an aggressive, imperialistic foreign policy that costs more that we can afford, makes us insecure, and benefits only a tiny elite.

ekianjo• 13 years ago

If we want to stop terrorism without trading it for something worse

Terrorism is a political tool. There is no willingness for it to stop. On the contrary. Both the aggressor and the victim will politically benefit from it. The "victim" will push for more State Power and more population control, and the aggressor will use any act of retaliation to recruit more people on their side.

kvb• 13 years ago

It's not just that. What's the probability that 100K people are killed by terrorists vs. police next year? With fat tails, the number of people killed in the recent past isn't an accurate summary of the true statistics.

jeremysmyth• 13 years ago

Vanishingly small. That's entirely the point.

ricardobeat• 13 years ago

Comparing to their chance of death by traffic accident would be more relevant.

The source for this article, which is linked in the third paragraph, does exactly that: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/statistics-you-are-no...

I find it odd that killings by cops are acceptable. We shouldn't settle for anything less than zero when offenders are unarmed.

vault_• 13 years ago

The relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1252/

DannyBee2• 13 years ago

The studies here have so many statistical problems it's not even worth talking about. It may be true, it may be not true. You can't just take stats from multiple sources and directly compare them without any thought. It doesn't work that way.

yetanotherphd• 13 years ago

If everyone in the world (except say 0.0001% of people) took MMR vaccines, then you would probably be 8 times more likely to die of an MMR vaccine than Measles.

Does that mean everyone should stop taking the vaccine?

zw123456• 13 years ago

What is the old saying... " what is the difference between lies and statistics?" Lies intentionally deceive. I think there is also a statistic I saw that said that the increased hassle caused by the TSA procedures caused more people to drive than fly which ended up killing more people in traffic accidents than were killed on 911. There are a lot of statistics like that. But I think the main point is that the threat of terrorism is vastly over blown, which I think most informed people understand.

stabiilize• 13 years ago

And thirty times more likely if you are a minority.

joeblau• 13 years ago

That's what I was about to say.

rch• 13 years ago

This is a real-world problem. Some warrants are absolutely indistinguishable from a home invasion, and mistakes are well documented in the press (but not reported widely enough, IMO). I remember one in Denver around 2003 that particularly horrendous.

tnash• 13 years ago

The statistical likelihood of something happening isn't super relevant to how we as human beings deal with things. Fear is a huge motivating factor. While we do not live in a perfect world, police, by design, decrease fear while terrorists increase it. That's why we commit money and resources.

A nice analogy is the difference between flying and driving. I know many people that have a fear of flying and refuse to get on a plane, but are perfectly comfortable behind the wheel even though it's statistically much less safe. How people feel about things is important.

Eliezer2• 13 years ago

Only 8?! With so many police officers? That's an amazing performance if true. But I suspect that police-caused fatalities are just being underreported here.

samolang• 13 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...

Eliezer2• 13 years ago

I do not 100% trust local police departments to decide whether or not they killed someone.

mynameishere• 13 years ago

Unless you happen to be in the same room with a police officer and terrorist.

Also, Domino's pizza delivery drivers a much more considerable threat to Americans than all the terrorists in Afghanistan. You could go on all day with such comparisons. I'll bet popcorn kills more people than Al Qaeda. And through asphyxiation!

throwaway_yy2Di• 13 years ago

Not how you estimate long-tail risks!

"The U.S. Department of State reports that only 17 U.S. citizens were killed worldwide as a result of terrorism in 2011. That figure includes deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq and all other theaters of war."

Since 2011, there's been no major tsunami, nuclear meltdown, or global financial crisis... so the probability of any those things happening must be zero.

GnwbZHiU• 13 years ago

Does that mean the police has successfully prevent terrorists to commit the killings?

jbb555• 13 years ago

In my country (UK) I believe the chance of being killed in either way is so close to zero as being something I can entirely ignore.

You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist

Related Stories