11 ms·
You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoHere is PDF original source for Author's statistics is referencing [ http://www.start.umd.edu/start/announcements/BackgroundReport_10YearsSince9_11.pdf 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.
- jrs99 13y agodid you read the article?
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoYes, any specific point you are trying to raise?
- jrs99 13y agono
- stellar678 13y agoYour points were taken up in the blog post: The fact that I'm personally extremely unlikely to be killed by either terrorists or cops isn't the reason the statistic is important. The statistic is important for public policy debate because there is 8 times more progress to be made in terms of saving lives by dealing with the problem of police killings.
- sliverstorm 13y agoIt's interesting, but it isn't the only needed info. You might have 8 times as much opportunity for progress, but it might be 8 times harder to make progress.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoPlease see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7092804 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7092804 for why just using raw numbers will not tell you whole story as I tried to point out.
- Anechoic 13y agoCops 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_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce... (killings are broken down by year, month and incidents)
- chc 13y agoThat list doesn't seem to answer the question "How many of those people killed by cops were trying to shoot back?"
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoI am doing a small sample of that now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_March_2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce... .
- Anechoic 13y agoScroll down to "Lists of Killings" and follow the links to see individual incidents by date.
- TrainedMonkey 13y agoHere is small sample of that data. I went through http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_March_2012 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_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States_2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforce... [2] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_police_officers_killed_in_the_line_of_duty 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 13y ago1. doesn't matter. The point is the relative danger that each group poses to an individual.
- Daniel_Newby 13y 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 13y agoTrue, 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.
- Crito 13y agoTwo 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.
- nextw33k 13y agoPersonally I cannot wait for my own robot car, so much free time will be given back to me. However the irrationality that comes into play with a robot car killing a human means that the creators of such cars are going to go above and beyond to do what they can to prevent it. By virtue of human irrationality we get safer robot cars.
- AnimalMuppet 13y agoAlso 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.
- pbhjpbhj 13y 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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- ZenPro 13y agoHow 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.
- DannyBee 13y 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)
- ZenPro 13y agoIt 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 13y agoWell we need to condition that probability on "while you are doing something perfectly normal".
- anonymoushn 13y agoI hear people get executed in Bart stations for no reason, but not by terrorists.
- Florin_Andrei 13y agoI wouldn't trust the Cato "Institute" with providing the result of 1 + 1, let alone a whole study.
- rpmartz 13y agoWhy? It's fairly obvious where their predilection lies. Have they exhibited a track record of less-than-reputable analyses? (Honest question, not trolling)
- briandh 13y agoWhy? 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 13y agoThis is an abuse of probability. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results.
- azakai 13y agoWithout 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.
- baddox 13y agoI 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 13y agoSince 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.
- baddox 13y agoNo one is arguing that this is the only or the most important comparison that can be made. It's just one of many comparisons. That doesn't make it useless. I think a lot of people would be surprised to learn that cops are a much larger threat than terrorists, and I think the comparison can be used to make a much larger point about the utility of counterterrorism measures.
- AndrewKemendo 13y agoComparing 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.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- vault_ 13y agoThe relevant xkcd: http://xkcd.com/1252/ http://xkcd.com/1252/
- DannyBee 13y agoThe 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 13y agoIf 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 13y agoWhat 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 13y agoAnd thirty times more likely if you are a minority.
- joeblau 13y agoThat's what I was about to say.
- rch 13y agoThis 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 13y agoThe 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.
- Eliezer 13y agoOnly 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.
- mynameishere 13y agoUnless 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 13y agoNot 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 13y agoDoes that mean the police has successfully prevent terrorists to commit the killings?
- jbb555 13y agoIn 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.