Fewer police officers were killed or beaten up on the job last year compared to 2004,
according to statistics released by the FBI this month. But the data still paints a picture of a very dangerous job, especially for city cops.
One woman and 54 men, averaging 37 years old and a decade of law-enforcement service behind them were killed in the line of duty last year. Another 67 died as a result of accidents on the job. Of the 55 officers who were killed, 47 were white; eight were black.
The deadliest beat in 2005, the report says, was not SWAT team or drug enforcement duty. Fifteen officers were killed during traffic pursuits or on traffic stops, and eight were slain while attempting to make arrests. Another eight were killed in ambushes. The rest of the killings happened as officers tried to break up family quarrels, investigated suspicious activity, transported prisoners and completed other duties.
Here is the FBI's full report.
And here is a state-by-state summary of the officers' deaths in 2005. Fall is the deadliest time of year for officers -- and the deadliest time of day is between 10 p.m. and midnight. More officers were killed in southern states than any other part of the country.
Last year at least 57,546 police officers were assaulted while on the job, a couple of thousand fewer than were attacked the year before. The largest number of assaults came in the early morning hours, from midnight to 2 a.m., as officers broke up bar fights, family quarrels and other disturbances.
The report says:
Of the officers who were injured as a result of assaults with weapons:
- 29.1 percent of the officers were attacked with personal weapons.
- 13.4 percent of the officers were attacked with knives or other cutting instruments.
- 9.1 percent of the officers were attacked with firearms.
- 24.6 percent of the officers were attacked with other types of dangerous weapons.
More information about this topic is included in Tables 68 and 69.
Times
- For the seventh year in a row, the largest percentage of assaults of officers (14.4 percent) occurred from 12:01 a.m. -- 2 a.m.
- The smallest percentage of assaults of officers (2.7 percent) was from 6:01 a.m. -- 8 a.m.
More information about this topic is provided in Table 65.
Circumstances
- The largest percentage (30.5) of officers assaulted were responding to disturbance calls (family quarrels, bar fights, etc.).
- 12.8 percent of the officers assaulted were handling, transporting, or maintaining custody of prisoners.
- 11.1 percent of the officers assaulted were performing traffic stops or pursuits.
More information about this topic (including a complete breakdown of the types of circumstances in which officers were assaulted) is provided in Table 67. [...]
Type of assignment
- 63.7 percent of the victim officers were assigned to 1-officer vehicle patrols.
- 16.7 percent of the victim officers were assigned to 2-officer vehicle patrols.
- 4.6 percent of the victim officers were performing detective or special assignment roles.
- 14.9 percent of the victim officers were performing other types of duties.
(Based on Table 67.)
Election Myth-Busters
A George Mason University professor who writes about voter turnout says it is wrong to report that voter participation has declined. In an online report, Michael McDonald writes:
Statistics on voter turnout presented here show that the much-lamented decline in voter participation is an artifact of the way in which it is measured. The most typical way to calculate the turnout rate is to divide the number of votes by what is called the "voting-age population" which consists of everyone age 18 and older residing in the United States. This includes persons ineligible to vote, mainly non-citizens and ineligible felons, and excludes overseas eligible voters. When turnout rates are calculated for those eligible to vote, a new picture of turnout emerges, which exhibits no decline since 1972. (See graph of voter turnout.)
In a piece for The Washington Post, McDonald offers other myth-busters:
Other countries' higher turnout indicates more vibrant democracies.
You can't compare apples and oranges. Voting rules differ from nation to nation, producing different turnout rates. Some countries have mandatory voting. If Americans were fined $100 for playing voter hooky on Election Day, U.S. participation might increase dramatically. But in fact, many people with a bullet pointed at their head simply cast a blank one or a nonsense vote for Mickey Mouse.
Moreover, most countries have national elections maybe once every five years; the United States has presidential or congressional elections every two years. Frequent elections may lead to voter fatigue. New European Union elections, for instance, seem to be depressing turnout in member countries. After decades of trailing turnout in the United Kingdom, U.S. turnout in 2004 was on a par with recent British elections, in which turnout was 59.4 percent in 2001 and 61.4 percent in 2005.
Negative ads turn off voters and reduce turnout.
Don't be so sure. The case on this one is still open. Negative TV advertising increased in the mid-1980s, but turnout hasn't gone down correspondingly. The negative Swift boat campaign against Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) apparently did little to depress turnout in the 2004 presidential race.
Some academic studies have found that negative advertising increases turnout. And that's not so surprising: A particularly nasty ad grabs people's attention and gets them talking. People participate when they're interested. A recent GOP attack ad on Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), a Senate candidate, has changed the dynamic of the race, probably not because it changed minds or dissuaded Democrats, but because it energized listless Republicans. [...]
Making voter registration easier would dramatically increase turnout.
Well, yes and no.
In 1993, the Democratic government in Washington enacted "Motor Voter," a program that allowed people to register to vote when they received their driver's license or visited a welfare office. Democrats thought that if everyone were registered, turnout rates would increase -- by as much as 7 percentage points.
But while many people registered to vote, turnout didn't go up much. Subsequent studies found only small increases in turnout attributable to Motor Voter, perhaps 2 percentage points.
Sizable increases in turnout can be seen in states with Election Day registration, which allows people to register when they vote. This may be related to the fact that lots of people don't make up their minds to vote until Election Day, rather than months in advance when they get a license.
Voter turnout has come up before here on Al's Morning Meeting. Read more about the impact of early voters here and here, the challenges of getting young people to vote here and here, and the effect weather can have on voter turnout here.
Self-Financing
I have covered a fair number of rich people who have self-financed their campaigns, and most don't win. See this research from Jennifer Steen, a professor at Boston College who studies candidates who foot the bill for their own campaigns.
The (Baltimore) Sun reports:
In 2000, retired investment banker Jon Corzine, a political novice, famously spent $63 million of his own money to win a U.S. Senate seat in New Jersey.
But many more have failed. In 2004, 14 people tried to win Senate seats by spending more than $1 million of their own money. They all lost. In Illinois, financier Blair Hull spent $28.6 million of his own money but lost the Democratic primary that year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks the influence of money on elections. Maryland state Sen. E.J. Pipkin, an Eastern Shore Republican and former Wall Street junk bond trader, spent nearly $1.6 million in his unsuccessful bid to oust U.S. Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski two years ago, according to the center.
"Self-financed candidates tend to lose," said Massie Ritsch, the center's communications director. "As investments go, financing your own political campaign is a terrible investment. On some level you have to question someone's business sense when you look at the track record. But there are exceptions."
Most self-financed candidates are challengers, and in Congress, challengers typically lose, he said. In 2004, 98 percent of House incumbents won re-election; 96 percent of incumbents were returned to the Senate, he said.
Forbes.com points out that the records of candidates who have poured $5 million or more of their own money into a race are only about half as good as those who get the money from others. About the self-funders, the story says:
Their election rate is only 37.5 percent, compared with 63.9 percent for candidates who raised at least $5 million for their campaigns, according to [Boston College professor Jennifer] Steen's analysis of elections from 1984 to 2004.
But incumbency was a potent advantage for the latter group, points out Steen, who wrote the book "Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections."
When you compare non-incumbents to non-incumbents, the wealthy types win 36.4 percent of the time versus an election rate of 49.2 percent for the candidates who raise outside funds for their campaign -- not as bad, but still not impressive.
History hasn't deterred scores of wealthy candidates from dropping a lot of cash on races this year. So far, 36 candidates have sunk more than half a million into their own races. That's up from 30 in 2004 and 29 in 2002, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
When Phil Bredesen, now governor of Tennessee, first ran for Congress, he self-financed and found it hurt his chances. His support base didn't grow wide enough to win. When he ran with donated funds he was elected mayor and then governor.
After his loss, Bredesen told me that when people donate their money to you, they show up at the polls to protect their investment.
On the other hand, I covered two Kentucky millionaires, John Y. Brown Jr. and Wallace Wilkinson, both of whom self-financed their campaigns for governor and won. Brown made his money in Kentucky Fried Chicken; Wilkinson made his selling used college textbooks.
A report by the Center on Congress at Indiana University says [PDF]:
When it comes to monetary contributions, only about 20 percent of the public report giving money to a political campaign, political party or political action committee in 2004. Of those, 8 percent were Democrats and 6 percent were Republicans. Just over 50 percent of the contributors reported giving $100 or less, and 25 percent of contributors reported giving exactly $1,000. Fifty percent of Republican contributors report giving over $1,000, while 33 percent of Democratic contributors report giving over $1,000.
Political Reality Check
As I was flying through Minneapolis this weekend on my way to Fargo (where I was teaching), I sat next to a nice guy from Kentucky. He was on his way to South Dakota to hunt pheasants. I told him I was from Kentucky too and we chatted about shared experiences.
I turned the conversation toward politics and asked him who his Congressman is. He had no clue. This guy was a pretty smart businessman. It reminded me that while newsies get pretty excited about the election, lots of people couldn't give a hoot.
One Chicago Sun-Times columnist guesses most people can't name even a half dozen of the 435 members of Congress. I suspect that is generous.
A new Pew poll showed:
Voters are less aware of the level of competition in races for the U.S. House. Those who live in competitive districts are more likely than others to say that their race is likely to be close (71 percent say this), but even in non-competitive districts, majorities of voters think the race is tight (55 percent).
Halloween Candy Test
For the first time in years, my wife bought the Halloween candy we will hand out tonight. It is usually my job. I always go for the good stuff -- Nestlé Crunch, Snickers, Reese's, Kit Kat. She bought Jolly Ranchers and Twizzlers.
I suggested she had not performed up to expectations in her decision-making. The kids disagreed. And now, Slate.com, having performed a highly unscientific but believable field test, may have proven my wife right.
The National Confectioners Association maintains two Web sites: Candy USA, a consumer site, and eCandy.com, which is aimed at businesses and the media. The first site backs up MY contentions:
My favorite thing to steal from my kid's bag is those little boxes of raisins. Last year, in the last minutes of the trick-or-treat rounds, one lady on our street ran out of candy and handed one of my kids an Atkins candy bar. I am pretty sure that is not on any kid's "favorites" list.
We are always looking for your great ideas. Send Al a few sentences and hot links.
Editor's Note: Al's Morning Meeting is a compendium of ideas, edited story excerpts and other materials from a variety of Web sites, as well as original concepts and analysis. When the information comes directly from another source, it will be attributed and a link will be provided whenever possible. The column is fact-checked, but depends upon the accuracy and integrity of the original sources cited. Errors and inaccuracies found will be corrected.
Thank you for great story ideas and info. However, when...
