How Do Police Deaths in the Line of Duty Compare to Police Shooting Deaths of Suspects?

An Instagram post about the numbers uses a combination of outdated and misleading information.

By
17

A viral post from popular Instagram account @cloydrivers76 on Wednesday showed images from a segment about police killings in America from Laura Ingraham’s Fox News show:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CCYxU97Hvr1

The screenshots come from the June 3 episode of The Ingraham Angle, during which Ingraham cited the Washington Post as her source of information for statistics on fatal police shootings of unarmed individuals in 2019 and the FBI as the source of her statistic on police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019. The latter statistic is correct, though it doesn’t tell the whole story and does not serve as a good parallel statistic to shootings of unarmed individuals: 89 police officers did die in the line of duty according to the FBI, but of those only 48 were killed in criminal acts while the other 41 died as a result of accidents. Nearly half of accidental deaths were due to motor vehicle crashes, with further deaths coming from officers being struck by vehicles while walking, firearm accidents, drowning, and one death from being struck by a tire while assisting a motorist.

The Washington Post has maintained a database of fatal police shootings in the United States since 2015. Data collected by the Post shows 14 unarmed black individuals were shot and killed by police in 2019 and 25 unarmed white individuals were shot and killed by police in 2019. It’s important when reading this information to note, as the Washington Post database does, that despite the fact that more white people are killed by the police, black Americans represent a much smaller fraction of the American population. Census estimates for 2019 place the United States population at 13.4 percent black and 60.1 percent non-Hispanic white.

The Wayback Machine shows that on June 3 the Post database did not yet include four black victims of police shootings and five white victims of police shootings, meaning Ingraham’s presentation of the statistics were not inaccurate at the time her show aired. However, with more instances of police shootings from 2019 now logged, @cloyddrivers76’s Instagram post, published Wednesday, is promoting outdated information.

Photograph of Laura Ingraham by Gage Skidmore/Wikimedia Commons. 

17
By
Comments (17)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Pingback: Best universities in Africa
  2. Pingback: Diyala Governorate Sciences
  3. Pingback: https://www.postandcourier.com/sponsored/phenq-reviews-does-this-diet-pill-actually-work/article_1cdbfb1a-395f-11ee-9d97-33c51303c959.html
  4. Pingback: gordijnen dubbele plooi
  5. Pingback: press release distribution press release distribution
  6. Avatar photo
    Kevin Johnson

    This interesting. But I am amazed that The Dispatch does not seem to wish to address more broadly the huge debate about police shooting stats. Here the author cites the difference in black and white percentage of the population, accepting without comment that this is the correct way to judge proportionality. Many justice experts, however, note that the difference in the percentage of violent crime committed or the difference in interactions with police are a better measure. In addition, The Dispatch doesn’t cover the expert literature, from for instance Dr. Fryer of Harvard, suggesting blacks are less likely to be shot by police than whites, while they are more likely to suffer lower levels of violence. Why doesn’t The Dispatch address what Fryer, Heather McDonald, Sam Harris, and many others argue about the problematic claim that there is an epidemic of cops shooting blacks? They may be wrong, and David French (who cites Lyman Stone) May be right...but why is the Dispatch not addressing this debate? The recent retraction of a study after Ms. McDonald cites it in a way that goes against the BLM narrative shows how harmful it is to ignore conflicting date. What is up?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Idontdocute

      One, this is a fact check on a different and specific subject. Two, not everyone seems equally impressed with Dr. Fryers use of applying economic definitions to social issues Which may be leading to misinterpretation.

      https://scholar.harvard.edu/jfeldman/blog/roland-fryer-wrong-there-racial-bias-shootings-police

      Collapse
      1. Joe1776

        If it was just checking facts then you would say yes what Ingraham wrote is factually true.

        But fact checks seem to never just check facts they almost always try to tell us what we should take away from those facts. This one is an exact case in point. I don't mind that and I am glad you raise that point about police deaths as I think it is relevant. (Although I would say even if the deaths are not from criminal activity but due to car accidents or getting injured while helping people on the roadside it still shows cops place their lives at risk to do their job of protecting us. How many people die processing insurance claims?)

        But I also agree with Kevin that it would be better if you engaged with the conservative view a bit more. Just looking at population percentages versus percents of shooting deaths is no better than what Ingraham did. Yes its true but really misleading if you just stop there.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kevin Johnson

        Thanks. I did not argue for accepting Fryer’s thesis and data uncritically. I specifically said that David and the overwhelming narrative could be correct. I just think that The Dispatch should engage with major issues, including the many (not just Fryer) who say “wait a minute...look at this” with data to back it up. We should care whether it is true, or not, that there is an epidemic of police shooting unarmed black men (rather than a steady number for at least 5 years), and whether it is true, or not, that blacks are shot by police more often in similar circumstances than whites. We have a serious problem in the US with stereotyping black men, and I want to fight against that. But popular narratives can go off the rails, as with the false claim of “hands up don’t shoot” in the Michael Brown case. I raise this point all over The Dispatch, and this piece seemed a good candidate to raise it again. Broader society is seeking to silence (by firing, deleting from social media, and public shaming) voices which question parts of the prevailing narrative. I hope the Dispatch will examine such challenging data, as it has cancel culture recently, rather than ignore it. You, of course may disagree with all or part of my plea. Thanks.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Idontdocute

          I actually think what you are looking at may be too small in scope. If you bring into the discussion shootings because it has a healthy data base so it’s easy to say hard clean evidence, but...Mr Floyd wasn’t shot. I could go to Black Lives Matter and probably find a data base of people not shot. If you put forward that is not what you are discussing at this time it might feel like you are seeking to silence the voices trying to be acknowledged for speaking about their fear and anger and grief. There are a majority of Americans that have no idea what cancel culture is and if they did, they wouldn’t care. No one else wants their jobs, no one cares what someone might say on Twitter, no one could be bothered with an attempt to shame them. Cancel culture is like sunscreen, mostly only applied to white people. You take the good money, the good jobs, the right connections, you take the risk with it.

          If you cannot hear how elitist and privileged and condescending it would sound comparing being excluded from a business conference because of cancel culture to a woman who has had her child tortured by the extensive use of tasers by police, you might not be quite ready for that discussion. (Adam Trammell)

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kevin Johnson

            A lot of words ignoring my points and impugning others to me I didn’t make...only to conclude I might not be ready for the “discussion.” Thankfully, you don’t (yet) get to decide who is ready for the discussion. It all started with me just asking why The Dispatch isn’t examining views from many experts, even if The Dispatch writers end up supporting David, BLM, you, or anyone else in concluding Dr. Fryer, Thomas Sowell, Heather McDonald, researchers at Michigan State, Steven Pinker, etc. are wrong. Enjoy the discussion, wherever it takes you, as will I.

            Collapse
  7. Luke Thompson

    Without breaking down the different situations, this post is entirely useless and masquerading as a fact check. There's no dispute over whether her statistic is true, and you didn't include any of the transcript to indicate what she said beyond that.

    Further, I'm not sure what "motor vehicle accidents" means here. It doesn't include cops struck by cars, but does it include people who hit them on purpose? Does it include deaths while they're in pursuit?

    If nothing else, that the police are at higher risk of death than African Americans is newsworthy. It contradicts the major themes of our time.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Idontdocute

      The fact check is specifically about the shooting of unarmed black and white men because that is exactly what is being checked. No more, no less.

      If you are not sure what motor vehicle accidents means, it appears that this dilemma was anticipated by the author and if you seek out the underlined sentence in the article it will take you directly to the supporting documentation.

      Magic.

      Collapse
  8. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    Thank you for the update. It stinks, because there are some valid concerns such as black on black violence and police brutality. But making a mistake like this makes having any debate about the issue harder, when a side seemingly deliberately gets it wrong, it poison's the well.

    Thank you for the corrections!

    Collapse
  9. RunTrail

    Oh, she's awful. I wouldn't trust anything she presents. Plus, I hate this numbers game. It's obvious there are too many corrupt police departments, too many abusive officers, and too many officers who protect the bad officers. Playing with the statistics to confirm a bias is just so awful when it comes to talking about actual human lives. The truth is we do desperately need police reform, starting with getting rid of police unions (all public sector unions) and getting rid of qualified immunity. Make each officer responsible for bad things that happen on their watch and maybe officers will be less likely to protect the bad actors.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Alain

    Mrs. Ingraham's dishonesty and the disservice she does to the Country is hardly surprising. Four hundred white Americans and 250 black Americans were shot and killed by police last year, a total of 1000 people were shot and killed, versus 48 police officers. Ideally no police officer should ever be shot and killed in the line of duty. Of the 1000 people shot and killed by police, 55 were unarmed. Ideally no unarmed person should every be shot and killed by police.

    Collapse