Helpful reminder: you are much more likely to be killed by police than terrorists

[Spartanmack]

appropo of all the hysteria lately from Republitards... thought I'd bump this thread.

I saw somewhere else that since 9/11 more American citizens have still been killed by right-wing terrorists in the US than islamic ones. and in either case, the threat is miniscule, dwarfed by gun deaths generally, and yes, the 500-1000 Americans killed by cops every year. not really sure about the exact number in the latter case because law enforcement has successfully opposed official efforts to document it, and citizen efforts this year suggest the number has been consistently underreported by the FBI.

Do you have any proof of this? Seems odd given most high profile mass shooters have either been not politically motivated or leftists. And it's worth mentioning that the San Bernardino shooter, in addition to holding radical Islamist views, was also a hardcore leftist.

You do realize that 500-1000 deaths by cops is pretty low and in case you're unaware, the overwhelming majority are justified (95% according the uber liberal Washington Post). So in the extreme case, if 50 deaths by police are questionable, while tragic and unacceptable, you have .000015% chance of being unjustly killed by a cop. But worrying and blogging endlessly about that isn't hysteria, it's good political activism because of course, it's indicative of institutionalized racism in America.

 

[Gulo Blue]

Do you have any proof of this? Seems odd given most high profile mass shooters have either been not politically motivated or leftists. And it's worth mentioning that the San Bernardino shooter, in addition to holding radical Islamist views, was also a hardcore leftist.

You do realize that 500-1000 deaths by cops is pretty low and in case you're unaware, the overwhelming majority are justified (95% according the uber liberal Washington Post). So in the extreme case, if 50 deaths by police are questionable, while tragic and unacceptable, you have .000015% chance of being unjustly killed by a cop. But worrying and blogging endlessly about that isn't hysteria, it's good political activism because of course, it's indicative of institutionalized racism in America.

If 500-1000 is low and worrying and blogging about it is hysteria, and the number caused by terrorists is less, then how big should our reaction be to terrorism?

 

[Spartanmack]

If 500-1000 is low and worrying and blogging about it is hysteria, and the number caused by terrorists is less, then how big should our reaction be to terrorism?

The number caused by terrorists is only less if you buy into the bullshit argument that starts with "Since 9/11". That is a completely illogical and misleading argument. I'm really surprised that you would fall for it - I'm not the least bit shocked michturd leads with it every time someone says terrorism is bad. If you go back 1 more day with your analysis, the numbers aren't even close. It ignores the effectiveness of the measures we've taken to prevent other attacks. Of course there are also the close calls we avoided due to dumb luck or a vigilant civilian (like the Times Square bomb).

So considering that and:

1) 0% of terrorist killings of Americans are justified (vs. 95% justified for killings by police)
2) certain organizations have pledged to strike us again like they did on 9/11 (cops aren't blogging about indiscriminately killing Americans)
3) they have demonstrated an ability to do so in a variety of ways in a variety of countries (cops haven't done that)
4) they have demonstrated an ability to at least influence others not necessarily officially a part of their ogranization (San Bernardino, Fort Hood, etc) to act inside the US and other western countries (France, Great Britain, Germany, etc) (again, cops haven't done that)
5) there is no reason to believe the number of people unjustly killed by police will spike dramatically above the 50 or so per year (not so with terrorism)

I would say we should continue to spend considerably greater resources protecting the population from terror than from police.

 

[Gulo Blue]

The number caused by terrorists is only less if you buy into the bullshit argument that starts with "Since 9/11". That is a completely illogical and misleading argument. I'm really surprised that you would fall for it

Are you sure about that? When you have a single event like 9/11 that can swing a decade's worth of averages enough to change an argument, I think it requires an asterisk either way, but in this case, I'm not sure it swings it enough to impact the statement. Including 9/11 would boots the average by ~250. Was it that close?

 

[Spartanmack]

Are you sure about that? When you have a single event like 9/11 that can swing a decade's worth of averages enough to change an argument, I think it requires an asterisk either way, but in this case, I'm not sure it swings it enough to impact the statement. Including 9/11 would boots the average by ~250. Was it that close?

are you serious? Even if you are serious the incremental 250 is still at least 5x the unjustified death rate from police. And like I said above, the likelihood of another 9/11 is much higher than a spike in the rate of unjustified deaths by police.

Also, keep in mind unjustified doesn't mean murder. a big number of those could be accidental. Still tragic, of course but not worthy of fear mongering about a murderous police state.

 

[Gulo Blue]

are you serious? Even if you are serious the incremental 250 is still at least 5x the unjustified death rate from police. And like I said above, the likelihood of another 9/11 is much higher than a spike in the rate of unjustified deaths by police.

Also, keep in mind unjustified doesn't mean murder. a big number of those could be accidental. Still tragic, of course but not worthy of fear mongering about a murderous police state.

If you add the "unjustified" condition, it doesn't matter whether or not you include 9/11 because the terrorism number is higher. Either way, it doesn't hinge on whether or not you include 9/11.

 

[Gulo Blue]

...and again, it's BS that you accuse me of wordplay. When you're slipping in words like "unjustified" that completely changes the numbers, it's not the guy that points out your meaning that's doing the tricky, gotcha, literal meaning thing.

Picky BS aside, the gist of what I posted was that it doesn't hinge on 9/11 like you claimed and it doesn't.

 

[Michchamp]

Are you sure about that? When you have a single event like 9/11 that can swing a decade's worth of averages enough to change an argument, I think it requires an asterisk either way, but in this case, I'm not sure it swings it enough to impact the statement. Including 9/11 would boots the average by ~250. Was it that close?

link. since 9/11, 45 Americans killed by Islamic terrorists, 48 by Right wing terrorists.

Including 9/11 in this context - namely what we should fear; what we should be hysterical about - fails for a different reason: it took a presidential Administration & Intelligence agencies that were completely negligent in their duties to even allow such an extreme attack to occur. I do not understand - looking at it objectively here - how any sane person could criticize Obama for the San Bernardino shootings as some have done, yet the 9/11 attacks get a pass. same attacks where the CIA reported Cheney dismissed their warnings by saying al qaeda was "bluffing"... and certain agenicies knew mohammad atta et al were in the country and did nothing???

so yes, we should've been outraged by terrorism and held the right people accountable for that: Bush, Cheney, George Tenet, etc

and, yeah even including 9/11... youre still more likely to be shot and killed by a cop

 

[Spartanmack]

If you add the "unjustified" condition, it doesn't matter whether or not you include 9/11 because the terrorism number is higher. Either way, it doesn't hinge on whether or not you include 9/11.

Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! That's my whole point - the terrorism number is higher! You have to control for justified homicide by police when comparing which of the two present the bigger danger to ordinary American civilians.

Edit: but i would argue it does matter and you should include 9/11 because it highlights the disparity between the threat of terrorism (islamic or "right wing") vs. the "blood thirsty" police force who have pledged to create a river of blood in America - oh wait, is it the cops or terrorists that are saying that? I always forget.

 

[Michchamp]

so far this year, 1106 Americans killed by police. 2014, 1108. Link.

yikes. and did you guys see that story about how the amount of citizen property seized by police under asset forfeiture laws exceeded the amount stolen in robberies & burglaries this year? WTF?

 

[tomdalton22]

so far this year, 1106 Americans killed by police. 2014, 1108. Link.

yikes. and did you guys see that story about how the amount of citizen property seized by police under asset forfeiture laws exceeded the amount stolen in robberies & burglaries this year? WTF?

considering more than $110B is spent on illegal drugs every year...it makes a lot of sense.

 

[Spartanmack]

...and again, it's BS that you accuse me of wordplay. When you're slipping in words like "unjustified" that completely changes the numbers, it's not the guy that points out your meaning that's doing the tricky, gotcha, literal meaning thing.

Picky BS aside, the gist of what I posted was that it doesn't hinge on 9/11 like you claimed and it doesn't.

You're accusing me of wordplay because I eliminate justified killings by cops from the argument? That's ridiculous. We're comparing unjustified killings by cops and terrorists to determine what our response should be. Of course it changes the numbers - and it should because we don't need protection from the portion of police who justifiably kill bad guys and in those instances, our response at least with respect to the police, should be nothing or "good job, officer".

Look at turds post - since 9/11 45 Americans have been killed by Islamic terrorism vs. 48 by right wing terrorism (although I'd bet my house a lot of those 48 are falsely categorized as right wing) and at most 700 unjustified deaths by cops. Now, let's go back one more day and the score is Islamic terrorists 3,041, "right wing" American terrorists 48, cops 700.

of course the post 9/11 numbers exclude the potential loss of life from terror attacks that were disrupted before they could be carried out. And the fact that 9/11, Paris, Mumbai, Fort Hood, San Bernardino happened is pretty solid evidence that others have been prevented - unless you believe the attacks that happened are the only attacks ever planned - i.e. terrorists have a 100% success rate.

And it does hinge on 9/11 - ignoring the catastrophic loss of life from a successful terror attack as a "one off" occurrence relies on the absurd belief that it can never happen again. As if the terrorists said "there, I think they get the point. Our work is done here." Clearly, there are people plotting to wreak similar havoc on America and we need to expend considerably more resources to thwart those threats than we do to stop murder by police because one is a real threat and one is libtard fantasy.

 

[sggatecl]

Don't the odds fall dramatically of getting killed by a cop if you're white, not an asshole, and don't break the law? I think I'm safe.

 

[Spartanmack]

Don't the odds fall dramatically of getting killed by a cop if you're white, not an asshole, and don't break the law? I think I'm safe.

They fall dramatically, to even more negligible levels (from .000335% to .000015%) if you're not a criminal of any color. 95% of all deaths by police are justified. That's a concept lost on a few here.

 

[Michchamp]

the number of unjustified police shootings is obviously difficult to calculate, because according to the police, EVERY shooting is justified, and in some cases the entire record and only witnesses are the cops. and even beyond that, what the police consider "justifiable" is subjective. don't carry any object in your hands... don't "reach for your waistband" etc, or you'll be shot 64 times, and end up a "justifiable" police shooting statistic.


see here: link. if these numbers are even half accurate, that still means 100's of police killings are unjustified every year.

 

[Gulo Blue]

You're accusing me of wordplay because I eliminate justified killings by cops from the argument?

Yes I am, in the context of you repeatedly accusing me of it.

 

[tomdalton22]

Don't the odds fall dramatically of getting killed by a cop if you're white, not an asshole, and don't break the law? I think I'm safe.

yes...ask Chris Rock!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2plo4FOgIU

 

[Michchamp]

interesting sentiment: "No Michchamp, I'm white, and not a criminal, unlike the blacks, so I won't ever be killed by the police. I don't understand why you're calling people are who not white middle/upper class suburbanites "Americans." This is strange to me. They are "other people" not real Americans."

 

[sggatecl]

interesting sentiment: "No Michchamp, I'm white, and not a criminal, unlike the blacks, so I won't ever be killed by the police. I don't understand why you're calling people are who not white middle/upper class suburbanites "Americans." This is strange to me. They are "other people" not real Americans."

Not what I said at all.

I just think there are far too many variables to comfortably say "YOU are (much) more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist (and vice versa)."

I flew in an airplane 72 times last year. Do you still think my odds of being struck by lightning were better than being in a plane crash? Probably not. Same goes for people of different ethnicity, social standing, etc. being killed by a police officer and/or terrorist. I don't like blanket statements passed off as fact and that's how I took the original post.

 

[sggatecl]

For shits and giggles I checked out your original link champ.

I only made it 4 examples down before I found this gem:

Kimberlee King, an African-American woman, was arrested in Pagedale, Missouri for traffic warrants. Police did not shoot her. Allegedly, according to a local Fox News affiliate, she “hung herself in her cell.” Family say King was not suffering from any sort of depression and had no “history of mental illness.” They also do not think the cell had enough room for anyone to hang themselves with a shirt.

That's one hell of a leap to classify this as 'killed by the police'. I didn't read beyond that because anyone who includes something like that clearly has an agenda to drive home and I try to stay away from biased reports, even if they may be trying to support something I agree with.