People shot dead by police in the US in 2015

[Deleted]

I have to ask what job you'd actually think is dangerous?

http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/

Police comes in at #15.

http://list25.com/25-most-dangerous-...n-the-world/5/

#14 in that one.

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Media/...us-Occupations

Doesn't fit in top 25 in that one.

[Karrotlord]

http://time.com/4326676/dangerous-jobs-america/

Police comes in at #15.

And how many job positions are there in total? I'm guessing more than 15.

[Taneras]

And how many job positions are there in total? I'm guessing more than 15.

20 are listed, but I can think of dozens that aren't. If you're 14th or 15th out of 100+, I'd say that's on the dangerous end of the spectrum.

[Deleted]

And how many job positions are there in total? I'm guessing more than 15.

Sure, I was just giving some listing of dangerous jobs when the guy asked which jobs are actually dangerous.

It would, of course, help a lot if there'd be a more clear graph showing fatalities per 1000 employees, just to make it clear that the number of police deaths is piddly compared to deaths in a few other professions.

[Scathbais]

Just 93 unarmed, just..

Michael Brown was unarmed. Doesn't mean he didn't pose a deadly threat to the officer who shot him.

[Taneras]

It would, of course, help a lot if there'd be a more clear graph showing fatalities per 1000 employees, just to make it clear that the number of police deaths is piddly compared to deaths in a few other professions.

I guess that'd show those who think that being a police officer is the *most* dangerous job. I doubt many people think that though.

[The Stormbringer]

I don't feel like ignoring it, just because someone wants nicer looking numbers, while the cause of death is obviously clear. Death by a gun is death by a gun. Don't like it? Tell people to suicide with knives then, and watch how many won't actually do it.

More likely they would kill themselves by jumping in front of busses/trains or off buildings, overdosing on drugs and alcohol, drowning, etc.

The thread is about being shot dead by another person. Thus why suicide is not applicable. It isn't because of 'wanting nicer looking numbers', it's about the context. Using suicide is intellectually disingenuous.

Plus, there was a study made that showed how much easier it is to carry out a suicide attempt with a gun and most importantly how easy it is to TRY AGAIN if the first attempt fails.
The study focused on this particular point. Very interesting.
Not sure why we should remove suicide numbers

Read the above. It's not about 'deaths caused by guns', it's about 'deaths caused by other people with guns'.

[Deleted]

I guess that'd show those who think that being a police officer is the *most* dangerous job. I doubt many people think that though.

It would give a bit of contrast and highlight how whiny cops are - or at least forum posters on behalf of cops - about the danger of their work, in comparison to so many other people who choose to work in much, much more dangerous professions.

[Spectral]

Plus, there was a study made that showed how much easier it is to carry out a suicide attempt with a gun and most importantly how easy it is to TRY AGAIN if the first attempt fails.
The study focused on this particular point. Very interesting.
Not sure why we should remove suicide numbers

Because international data makes clear that the substitution effect is very large. There's not really even much of a trend between gun ownership and suicide rate across nations. In nations with guns, people shoot themselves when they want to die; in nations without them they hang or poison themselves. The Japanese have nearly zero guns, but seem to do just fine at killing themselves.

[Deleted]

More likely they would kill themselves by jumping in front of busses/trains or off buildings, overdosing on drugs and alcohol, drowning, etc.

The thread is about being shot dead by another person. Thus why suicide is not applicable. It isn't because of 'wanting nicer looking numbers', it's about the context. Using suicide is intellectually disingenuous.

Read the above. It's not about 'deaths caused by guns', it's about 'deaths caused by other people with guns'.

As the study shows, there are several factors that make suicide using a gun way easier than any other method. Not everyone that fails his first attempt at hanging himself, goes through the same process AGAIN.
With a gun, it's EXTREMELY easy to try again.
This was one of the strongest point.

- - - Updated - - -

Because international data makes clear that the substitution effect is very large. There's not really even much of a trend between gun ownership and suicide rate across nations. In nations with guns, people shoot themselves when they want to die; in nations without them they hang or poison themselves. The Japanese have nearly zero guns, but seem to do just fine at killing themselves.

There are several factors at play when talking suicide numbers. Having a gun by itself isnt all of it obviously. That is not what the study was saying.

[matt4pack]

Shhhh people dont understand statistics

They take them at face value forgetting they are not proof, but only a tool used to make educated assumptions.

Oh my god males are 49% of the population but are 95% of police shootings. Why are police out hunting down males?

[The Stormbringer]

As the study shows, there are several factors that make suicide using a gun way easier than any other method. Not everyone that fails his first attempt at hanging himself, goes through the same process AGAIN.
With a gun, it's EXTREMELY easy to try again.
This was one of the strongest point.

- - - Updated - - -

There are several factors at play when talking suicide numbers. Having a gun by itself isnt all of it obviously. That is not what the study was saying.

I'm not talking about the study, I'm talking about using the results of the study in a thread that's about 'death by guns used by other people' not matching up. It's perfectly valid for the study, but it's not valid for this thread. This thread is about people being shot by other people, not shooting themselves, thus why using suicide numbers for this thread is inflating numbers artificially and unnecessarily.

[Taneras]

It would give a bit of contrast and highlight how whiny cops are - or at least forum posters on behalf of cops - about the danger of their work, in comparison to so many other people who choose to work in much, much more dangerous professions.

It only places the dangers of that job into perspective. It doesn't diminish it.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with a job who's dangers deal with physics (electricians/lumber workers) rather than something as dynamic as a person. A tree won't jump out of the ground and fall on you. It's much easier to control the environment in a lot of those professions than it is to control a person.

[NineSpine]

And men account for 95% of the police shootings despite making up roughly 50% of the population. I'm willing to bet most of the people shot by police are between 15-45 as well.

Hrm, its almost as if the people shot most by police are the most violent demographics. Young men (of any race).

Maybe instead of cross comparing these statistics with the general population, we look at the criminal population.

In 2013 blacks accounted for 54% of the homicides across the country. You'll see similar statistics from most other violent crimes. So despite only making up 13% of the population, they make up roughly half of the violent crime. If I had to bet, I'd wager that cops interact with black people more often than 13% of their shifts on average since they commit much more than 13% of the violent crime.

Adjusted in this manner, blacks should account for roughly half of police shootings. But whites are shot at twice the rate? Seems white people are over represented in police shootings...

Michael Brown was unarmed, and a court system found his death to be justified. You can't automatically determine *ANY* unarmed person shot must mean that the cop is guilty of manslaughter/murder.

If being charged with apprehending suspected murderers, rapists, etc is deemed "not very dangerous" I have to ask what job you'd actually think is dangerous?

1. You can't assume that homicide rate equals violent crime rate.
2. You can't assume that violent crime rate, which is determined by arrests and/or convictions, means a demographic is actually more violent. Chance to be arrested and prosecuted for a violent crime does not equal chance to commit a violent crime.
3. Being a cop isn't a very dangerous job. We know this because we have injury and fatality statistics and it doesn't rank terribly high. Being a roofer or a trucker is much, much more dangerous. When you consider how few police injuries are because of altercations, as opposed to car accidents, it appears even safer.
4.

- - - Updated - - -

It only places the dangers of that job into perspective. It doesn't diminish it.

Frankly, I'd rather deal with a job who's dangers deal with physics (electricians/lumber workers) rather than something as dynamic as a person. A tree won't jump out of the ground and fall on you. It's much easier to control the environment in a lot of those professions than it is to control a person.

If it's so much easier, then the statistics should not show those jobs to have higher rates of injury and death.

- - - Updated - - -

Because international data makes clear that the substitution effect is very large. There's not really even much of a trend between gun ownership and suicide rate across nations. In nations with guns, people shoot themselves when they want to die; in nations without them they hang or poison themselves. The Japanese have nearly zero guns, but seem to do just fine at killing themselves.

International data is nearly useless. State by state data is more useful, and proves you wrong:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/ma...gunprevalence/

- - - Updated - - -

Oh my god males are 49% of the population but are 95% of police shootings. Why are police out hunting down males?

Because the main targets are black males, which have always been the main targets of anti-black racism.

[Spectral]

International data is nearly useless. State by state data is more useful, and proves you wrong:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/ma...gunprevalence/

Why in the world would international data be useless, but state data be excellent? If the guns->suicide link is as strong as some seem to believe, it should be a persistent effect across cultures, not something found only in carefully curated data.

The link you provided doesn't remotely establish even attempt causality - both maps look like they're basically maps of how rural an area is. Appalachia and Big Sky country have lots of guns and lots of suicides - this suggests underlying causes for both guns and suicides rather than a direct relationship between the two.

This point is better articulated by Scott Alexander than I in the post Beware Regional Scatterplots; the first couple paragraphs are worth a quick read for why this sort of assessment is not a great plan.

[NineSpine]

Why in the world would international data be useless, but state data be excellent? If the guns->suicide link is as strong as some seem to believe, it should be a persistent effect across cultures, not something found only in carefully curated data.

Because nations have substantially larger differences than states, especially in terms of things like poverty, social safety net, mental health treatment, etc, all of which have serious effects on suicide rates. Simple comparison: Smoking may cause cancer, but that doesn't mean the overall rate of cancer is ALWAYS going to be higher in countries that have higher rates of smoking. There are too many other variables. Isolating those two numbers is stupid and fruitless. A small comparison where there are fewer variables, such as comparing neighboring towns with different smoking rates, is much more useful.

The link you provided doesn't remotely establish even attempt causality - both maps look like they're basically maps of how rural an area is. Appalachia and Big Sky country have lots of guns and lots of suicides - this suggests underlying causes for both guns and suicides rather than a direct relationship between the two.

It establishes just as much causality as your data does. Don't provide blanket international data and then cry when someone provides blanket state data.

This point is better articulated by Scott Alexander than I in the post Beware Regional Scatterplots; the first couple paragraphs are worth a quick read for why this sort of assessment is not a great plan.

Great points, which apply equally well to your bullshit international data.

[Masark]

Thus, if thats your point, then you need to accept the rest. Of 990 police kills, 75% were in response to an attack happening.

Allegedly. How many of those were cases of "He took my tazer!" or "I was being dragged!"?

Conveniently, we only have the cop's word on the matter.

How many cases do we have like this where the video doesn't get leaked to the media and the PD successfully covers it all up?

[Spectral]

Because nations have substantially larger differences than states, especially in terms of things like poverty, social safety net, mental health treatment, etc, all of which have serious effects on suicide rates. Simple comparison: Smoking may cause cancer, but that doesn't mean the overall rate of cancer is ALWAYS going to be higher in countries that have higher rates of smoking. There are too many other variables. Isolating those two numbers is stupid and fruitless. A small comparison where there are fewer variables, such as comparing neighboring towns with different smoking rates, is much more useful.

This makes sense. I find it plausible.

It establishes just as much causality as your data does. Don't provide blanket international data and then cry when someone provides blanket state data.

Great points, which apply equally well to your bullshit international data.

My claim is much weaker - I don't think there's a strong causal relationship between prevalence of guns and suicide rate. I wouldn't be surprised if there is some. This relatively weak null hypothesis position doesn't require anywhere near as much evidence as the claim that guns are a significant driver of suicide.

So, assuming that you actually think these are great points and you're not just being snarky, it leaves us back at having a pretty low confidence level in the impact of guns on suicide based on available data.

[enragedgorilla]

Fact be damned indeed.

It begs the question though. Why do media go out of their way to create a false narrative that could potentially lead to fractuing USA? Are there people behind the scenes who hope to cripple USA in some way and then take some form of advantage over it when it's vulnerable?

Bleeds it leads,war is good for business, we aren't in the business of selling facts we are in the business of selling stories....etc.
Why tell the entire truth when partial stories are faster to put up,require less vetting AND ....get you more revenue?

for the op though, I would love to see the current break down of ethnic origin for the US though , compared with the ....stats posted in the first post.
Break downs for interactions with police etc etc.

Numbers as presented are telling however it is not a complete story(nor would it be if you provided the break downs I asked about)

[frogger237]

Reminds me of my dad who will be like "black people commit the most crimes... just saying".. Like okay dad, do you want to say anything else? Trying to confess something? Hm
Anyway, to me it looks like we have a faulty system that keeps the black man down. It's a vicious cycle.

There are lots of factors that play into this doesn't mean its designed to keep the black man down.
just some examples:

The majority of poor black people tend to live in major cities clustered together which means your closer to criminal elements and people in your community. This causes you to have a higher chance of joining a gang because either your friends talk you into it, you don't wanna get fucked up by them, or you see it as a way of escaping poverty. This also means during a crime there is typically more than one person committing the act which increases the risk of violence/escalating the situation.

White poor tend to be more rural which makes it much harder to join a gang. Meaning most crime is typically carried out by 1-2 individuals. Because everyone pretty much knows everyone and there are less store, most of the time people break into the homes of people they know when they aren't home making violence less of an issue.

Bleeds it leads,war is good for business, we aren't in the business of selling facts we are in the business of selling stories....etc.
Why tell the entire truth when partial stories are faster to put up,require less vetting AND ....get you more revenue?

for the op though, I would love to see the current break down of ethnic origin for the US though , compared with the ....stats posted in the first post.
Break downs for interactions with police etc etc.

Numbers as presented are telling however it is not a complete story(nor would it be if you provided the break downs I asked about)

If you look at the website you can actually read about all the people shot. Like out of the 93 unarmed deaths 3 were women 2 black and one white. One of the black women was with a murder suspect who fired at police. The other two women apparently didn't do anything and were shot accidentally.