
You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist - Argentum01
http://www.cato.org/blog/youre-eight-times-more-likely-be-killed-police-officer-terrorist
======
azakai
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.

~~~
danenania
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
> 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.

------
TrainedMonkey
Here is PDF original source for Author's statistics is referencing [
[http://www.start.umd.edu/start/announcements/BackgroundRepor...](http://www.start.umd.edu/start/announcements/BackgroundReport_10YearsSince9_11.pdf)
]. 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.

~~~
msandford
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
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
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.

------
Eliezer
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
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States#Lists_of_Killings)

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

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

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

------
throwaway_yy2Di
_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.

------
tn13
Well we need to condition that probability on "while you are doing something
perfectly normal".

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

------
tnash
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.

------
yetanotherphd
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
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.

------
ZenPro
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.

~~~
DannyBee
"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
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.

------
pbhjpbhj
> _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.

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

------
DannyBee
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.

------
rch
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.

------
stabiilize
And thirty times more likely if you are a minority.

~~~
joeblau
That's what I was about to say.

------
jbb555
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.

------
vault_
The relevant xkcd: [http://xkcd.com/1252/](http://xkcd.com/1252/)

------
mynameishere
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!

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

