Threats to Americans, ranked (by actual threat instead of media hype)

[Monash]

And by way of counterpoint: "What Americans fear most"

A recent press release based on results compiled by researchers at Chapman University using data from a 'fear survey'. Note the dramatic differences between what they fear and actual threats.

What Americans fear most -- new poll from Chapman University

Oh and Zraver, get over it man, Police? Really? In the grand scheme of things we're no more 'dangerous' than a whole lot of other professions whom you entrust with the safety of yourself or your loved ones from time to time e.g. doctors, engineers, pilots ... emergency response workers etc. Last week a Scout Troop Leader over here injured someone in a car accident, does that mean I start diving for cover every time I see one of them walk by? :)

[Squirrel]

... do I start diving for cover every time I see one of them go by? :)

Just be sure to look before you jump...

[Doktor]

Just be sure to look before you jump...

Explains the raise of deaths caused by falling :whome:

[Chunder]

... does that mean I start diving for cover every time I see one of them walk by? :)

Depends if you think it's like the catholic church or not :confu:

[Louis]

You sure he wasn't knocking a witness monash? :)

[zraver]

And by way of counterpoint: "What Americans fear most"

A recent press release based on results compiled by researchers at Chapman University using data from a 'fear survey'. Note the dramatic differences between what they fear and actual threats.

What Americans fear most -- new poll from Chapman University

Oh and Zraver, get over it man, Police? Really? In the grand scheme of things we're no more 'dangerous' than a whole lot of other professions whom you entrust with the safety of yourself or your loved ones from time to time e.g. doctors, engineers, pilots ... emergency response workers etc. Last week a Scout Troop Leader over here injured someone in a car accident, does that mean I start diving for cover every time I see one of them walk by? :)

Cops might be good where you are, you risk your life trusting them here. Every day its a new outrage- shooting a dog that had to be coaxed over to the cop, hacking womens phones to steal their private pics, no knock raid murders, rape....

If there are good cops in the US, why are they not arresting the bad ones?

Oh, and if someone other than a cop injures me I can sue them. Cops are protected by qualified immunity and powerful unions and property interests that effectively blunt and citizen recourse and ensure virtually no prosecution for crimes. A 2000 DOJ report titled Police Attitudes Towards Abuse of Authority.... 84% of cops report seeing abuse of citizens and 61% fail to report it, even when it is a serious crime....

[Monash]

Cops might be good where you are, you risk your life trusting them here. Every day its a new outrage- shooting a dog that had to be coaxed over to the cop, hacking womens phones to steal their private pics, no knock raid murders, rape....

If there are good cops in the US, why are they not arresting the bad ones?

Oh, and if someone other than a cop injures me I can sue them. Cops are protected by qualified immunity and powerful unions and property interests that effectively blunt and citizen recourse and ensure virtually no prosecution for crimes. A 2000 DOJ report titled Police Attitudes Towards Abuse of Authority.... 84% of cops report seeing abuse of citizens and 61% fail to report it, even when it is a serious crime....

Z, first off the thread was about threats to American citizens, specifically a study that ranked deaths in order of seriousness/likelihood of occurrence. Statistically speaking 'Death by Cop' is a valid subset of the overall death rate in any country. (Disallowing 'righteous' shoots of course where the victim normally only has themselves to blame.) But then again so is 'death by ...insert your favorite profession here.' For that matter so is death by Chihuahua! i.e. somewhere, some time, someone is going to trip over one of the little bastards and break their neck - does that mean people should stay awake at night worrying over the risk - I don't think so.

That's all the thread was about, risk of death, not criminal offenses committed by cops, not abuse of power by cops, not injuries committed by cops. You want to sue a cop because you believe he has committed a tort, go ahead but your lawyer will suggest you sue the Police Department involved instead, they have money (and insurance). Chances are the cop doesn't - not if he's living off his wages anyway. Put it another way, if you get food poisoning at McDonald's you don't sue the the minimum wage teenager who cooked the damm burger - you sue ass of the company instead. Which is what hundreds of wronged citizens have done i.e. they sued the Police Department who employed the officer/s concerned.

As for the rest, Police do arrest and charge other Police, check the stats, but they still have to reach the same burden of proof needed for any citizen and sadly in some cases cops, like lawyers know how to 'play' the system for all its worth. Go try charging a lawyer with a criminal offense and see how easy it is (I know from personal experience). So if that's your gripe the solution is simple, change your constitution to make it easier to get convictions - and good luck getting that boat to float!

[Albany Rifles]

Well, we know what Ozzies are afraid of....

[zraver]

Z, first off the treat was about threats to American citizens, specifically a study that ranked deaths in order of seriousness/likelihood of occurrence. Statistically speaking 'Death by Cop' is a valid subset of the overall death rate in any country. (Disallowing 'righteous' shoots of course where the victim normally only has themselves to blame.) But then again so is 'death by ...insert your favorite profession here.' For that matter so is death by Chihuahua! i.e. somewhere, some time, someone is going to trip over one of the little bastards and break their neck - does that mean people should stay awake at night worrying over the risk - I don't think so.

In my original reply to the subject i pointed out that cops rated higher than many of the listed threats. Between bad shoots and car crashes cops in the US kill hundreds of innocent people and hundreds of pets every year.

That's all the thread was about, risk of death, not criminal offenses committed by cops, not abuse of power by cops, not injuries committed by cops. You want to sue a cop because you believe he has committed a tort, go ahead but your lawyer will suggest you sue the Police Department involved instead, they have money (and insurance). Chances are the cop doesn't - not if he's living off his wages anyway. Put it another way, if you get food poisoning at McDonald's you don't sue the the minimum wage teenager who cooked the damm burger - you sue ass of the company instead. Which is what hundreds of wronged citizens have done i.e. they sued the Police Department who employed the officer/s concerned.

The problem is in oart that cops play with tax payer money. Doctors and other medical professionals carry liability insurance, if they mess up their rates go up. (hopefully) Most citizens have private liability insurance through their home owners or renters policy (I do). Ditto for most professions... if cops had to carry personal liability insurance that hit them in the pocket book when claims were filed you's see a lot less gung ho shoot first bury the questions later.

As for the rest, Police do arrest and charge other Police, check the stats,

I have checked the stats, its almost none existent.

but they still have to reach the same burden of proof needed for any citizen and sadly in some cases cops, like lawyers know how to 'play' the system for all its worth. Go try charging a lawyer with a criminal offense and see how easy it is (I know from personal experience). So if that's your gripe the solution is simple, change your constitution to make it easier to get convictions - and good luck getting that boat to float!

1. The burden is much higher because cops are protected by unions and property interests. Cops are so well shielded from the legal system that prosecutors here need to keep lists of what are called Brady Cops- cops known to lie on the stand or fake evidence who are none the less still employed in law enforcement. When the system can't get rid of the people actively undermining it, who also happen to be its enforcers the system is broken.

DA keeps secret list of bad cops | UTSanDiego.com

[SteveDaPirate]

Doctors and other medical professionals carry liability insurance, if they mess up their rates go up. (hopefully) Most citizens have private liability insurance through their home owners or renters policy (I do).

I've actually wondered if liability insurance could be the solution to the endless gun regulation debates in the US. Rather than relying on legislatures to make overly emotional decisions on what gun parts should be legal or banned, just make everyone that wants to own a gun carry liability insurance just as they would with a car or when renting an apartment. I can see a lot of positive aspects to such a scheme.

• Responsible gun owners will pay a low insurance rate, while people who are careless or stupid get their rates jacked up
• When accidents happen, destroyed property and injured people are swiftly compensated
• More people will attend gun safety and education classes to get discounted insurance rates
• Legislators can waste time on something else

[zraver]

I've actually wondered if liability insurance could be the solution to the endless gun regulation debates in the US. Rather than relying on legislatures to make overly emotional decisions on what gun parts should be legal or banned, just make everyone that wants to own a gun carry liability insurance just as they would with a car or when renting an apartment. I can see a lot of positive aspects to such a scheme.

• Responsible gun owners will pay a low insurance rate, while people who are careless or stupid get their rates jacked up
• When accidents happen, destroyed property and injured people are swiftly compensated
• More people will attend gun safety and education classes to get discounted insurance rates
• Legislators can waste time on something else

I can't really see a practical down side to it, though requiring insurance to exercise a right is problematic. A more workable solution would be to require liability insurance when issuing a concealed carry license. Either a specific carry license gun liability insurance or as part of existing personal/home owners/rental policies.

[SteveDaPirate]

I can't really see a practical down side to it, though requiring insurance to exercise a right is problematic. A more workable solution would be to require liability insurance when issuing a concealed carry license. Either a specific carry license gun liability insurance or as part of existing personal/home owners/rental policies.

I'm not against requiring concealed carry license holders to show proof of insurance, but I actually think they are among the groups of gun owners who are least likely to need it. If someone has their CCL at least I know that they care enough to get some education and demonstrate basic firearm proficiency.

I think you are probably correct that requiring insurance to exercise a right guaranteed by the constitution would be problematic. It is a bit unfortunate since liability insurance is a useful mechanism for sensibly regulating the use of other potentially destructive tools.

I know some of the other things in the Bill of Rights are only allowed when you meet certain conditions. Freedom of assembly, for example, is often constrained by time, place, and manner. I don't know enough about constitutional law to know if something like that would provide enough of a precedent to establish proof of insurance as a prerequisite to gun ownership.

[Monash]

Z a couple of things, firstly hundreds of different professions from fire fighters to military personnel to air traffic controllers are employed by the 'government'. If your primary beef is that suing a cop means the taxpayer pays then every public servant is in the same boat! Every single one of them from the President on down through Senators/Congressmen/women to a lowly county records clerk, not just Police - so they would all have to take out personal liability insurance.

Secondly government agencies generally don't take out personal liability insurance and for a good reason. Its much cheaper for government agencies to cover their employees directly than it is to make their employees take out a policy. Theoretically they could go down that path but the result would simply be higher PS wages because the employee would have to be compensated for the addition cost via a wage increase - just like the costs of insurance are factored into the fees charged buy other professions and industries, which means higher taxes. Also no private citizen or company could hope to get cheaper coverage than State or Federal authorities and working out what level of cover was required by each government employee in the country would be a nightmare.

I suppose if you really wanted to you could make a special case for Police but they will demand and get pay increases to cover the cost, otherwise they would simply refuse to attend 'dangerous' call outs like domestics and just stick to 'safe' work like writing up speeding tickets, try getting a surgeon to perform a high risk operation without personal liability insurance cover and see how far you get. Technically you could circumvent the whole problem I suppose by just 'privatizing' at least local P.D.s but that would mean putting contracts out to competitive tender and whoever wins is going to factor the cost of commercial indemnity insurance into their quote anyway so you are back to square one.

As for bad cops they should be weeded out and fired but from what I can see you guys have way to many LEAs over there so its far to easy for poorly trained/dishonest or incompetent cops to hide or move agencies.

Finally there are still way more common/dangerous things to worry about over there than being shot by a cop. The only intelligent way in life to deal with risk is to identify the most likely and serious threats to yourself and your loved ones first and then do what you can to minimize them, starting and the top of the list and working down. So you could for example start with health issues and do things like exercise & diet will reduce the risk of heart attack. Personally, given the size of the US population and assuming you are an average, law abiding citizen then I'd probably be inclined to start worrying about being shot by a cop about the same time I start preparing for rogue badger attacks! i.e it wouldn't be high on my list of worries. However if I was to go into the meth business then I would suggest that my chances of being shot (by someone) would definitely be going up - and hence it would be higher on my threat radar.

As for any normal person, worrying about ultra low risks like 'death by cop' is simply a recipe for a strait jacket or an early grave due too stress, or both.

Cheers

[zraver]

Monash, you hit on the core of the problem- we have too many cops, too many laws and they are too militarized.

[Monash]

Which brings us back to societies perception of risk vs the reality. You may be right and the US may be over-policed, that's a topic that requires detailed analysis. However what is certain is that there is way to much political and media capital to be gained in the West (not just the US) from 'talking up' crime as a threat.

People are being bombarded with messages suggesting that crime of all types is out of control when in fact the opposite is true. It gets votes and sells media space sure, but it is not true. Across the entire developed world crime statistics reveal a broad trend towards steadily declining rates of crime and this trend is reflected across a broad range of crime types, not just one or two specific crimes. There are a range of reasons for this including social and economic factors, technology and yes -better/smarter policing but the trend is clearly evident. This generation is 'safer' than their grandparents were and their children and grandchildren will be safer still.

You may or may not have to many Police in the U.S., to many laws and to much emphasis on 'militarized policing' but that comes down to cultural and political issues which I think reinforce each other. For some reason it appears that the richer, healthier and safer people become the more insecure they seem to feel - obviously there are some very basic physiological and/or cultural issues at play. In the West at least people alive today are healthier, wealthier, better educated and more 'protected' from a diverse range of threats than any other generation in history. Yet they don't seem to feel happier or more secure as a result. Hence the contradiction between perception and reality.