5 ms·

Here is PDF original source for Author's statistics is referencing [ http://www.start.umd.edu/start/announcements/BackgroundReport_10YearsSince9_11.pdf http://w

Here 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 ago
did you read the article?
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  Yes, any specific point you are trying to raise?
  - jrs99 13y ago
    no
  - stellar678 13y ago
    Your 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 ago
      It'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 ago
      Please 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 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_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 ago
  That list doesn't seem to answer the question "How many of those people killed by cops were trying to shoot back?"
  - TrainedMonkey 13y ago
    I 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 ago
    Scroll down to "Lists of Killings" and follow the links to see individual incidents by date.
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  Here 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 ago
1. 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 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.
- Crito 13y 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.
  - nextw33k 13y ago
    Personally 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 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.

jrs99 13y ago

did you read the article?

TrainedMonkey 13y ago
Yes, any specific point you are trying to raise?
- jrs99 13y ago
  no
- stellar678 13y ago
  Your 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 ago
    It'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 ago
    Please 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 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_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 ago
That list doesn't seem to answer the question "How many of those people killed by cops were trying to shoot back?"
- TrainedMonkey 13y ago
  I 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 ago
  Scroll down to "Lists of Killings" and follow the links to see individual incidents by date.
TrainedMonkey 13y ago
Here 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 ago

1. 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 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.

Crito 13y 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.
- nextw33k 13y ago
  Personally 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 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.