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.
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.
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.
And the counterpoint is that they may not actually be the bigger danger, unless you are involved in the commission of a crime. Well. It depends on what you mean by "danger to life and limb". Do you mean, "For the average person?" Or do you mean, "For a particular person?"
The problem with "the average person" is that such a thing does not really exist. So the answer to the question may not be informative. I think most people, when reading this headline, probably think that it is claiming they are more likely to die from the police than terrorism. Unless you are a criminal, that may not be true (depending on P(criminal|killed by cop)), and it's not possible to estimate that based on data in the article, if it's the same article I've seen before.
True, but the whole point is that the cops are a bigger danger to life and limb (and perhaps liberty) than terrorists.
Only if you look at it simplistically. Terrorists on the streets don't really stop other crime, whereas cops do. Some drunks having a fight outside a bar at closing time? Having terrorists around won't help.
Also note that the cops are in much more danger of life and limb than the rest of us. That is, the cops get to confront the creeps so that most of us don't have to most of the time. Some of those creeps are armed, violent, and not inclined to cooperate with the cops. This leads to cops often being in situations where, if they're a half-second late in shooting, they're dead. If they're a half-second early, they're villified, suspended and charged with manslaughter.
We're asking them to do the impossible, and they're coming close to doing it. I get the bit about trying to recalibrate the public's perception of risk, but don't make them freak out about the cops to make your point.
If you go by deaths (admittedly, a terrible metric since cops wear body armor and typically can get on the radio for an ambulance pretty quickly), then cops are not in more danger of life and limb than the rest of us. There are plenty of jobs that you are more likely to be killed, even murdered, in.
Regardless, you are missing the point of the comparison. The comparison should not be taken to imply "You should fear the police". That would be an irrational takeaway from a comparison between police and terrorists. What you are suppose to take away from the comparison is "Gee, my fear of terrorists is pretty damn irrational, since plenty of other things are more likely to kill me, but I don't particularly fear any of them."
The fact that so many people get hung up on this comparison demonstrates the comparison's relative uselessness in practice. The comparison has too much emotional baggage to be properly digested without careful spoon-feeding.
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.