Killing Odds

What probability standard justifies the killing of a human being who is judged to have some degree of possibility of inflicting grievous physical harm to another human being, their possessions or collectively their institutions?

In the case of killing with drones 41 men were targeted, 1,147 were killed. 

That has some implied ambiguity but that is the headline.  The ambiguity is that not all 1,147 killed were men which would seem to be more honorable than the killing of women and children.  That leads to examination of the matter of honorable or at least ethical killing.

Killology is an interesting website with an academic approach to the matter of killing.  It is framed in the military and law enforcement problem domain as well as general civilian authority to kill.  Biased?  Not to the military mindset of LtCol Grossman.  His past military title lends some credence to his knowledge but also frames his approach.  If his name was preceded by the title Rev. he may have a different frame of reference.

Institutions need measurable criteria for critical functions.  There certainly must be some established measure of collateral damage (killing those that are not targeted, not judged culpable) for drone strikes.  Whatever the collateral damage actually is becomes the defacto criteria ratio?

In other words, whoever dies and in what number they die in relation to whoever is intended to be killed (or failure to kill) is the acceptable odds justifying the attempt and the actual after the fact results?

Can anyone say:  Yes, but we did not mean to kill them?

But we did and we did mean to kill them.

A little reminder: 20 years after being ordered to tally cop shootings, the DOJ still isn't doing it

Killing is a matter of accountability.  If unintended killing of innocent persons is statistically acceptable, perhaps within established  judgment parameters making the actual killing of innocent persons a rubber number then exceeding that number demands some accountability.  However, if that number of the judgment criteria is not established before the fact then there is no accountability after the fact.

What is the acceptable number if innocent people killed in the attempt to kill those that are specifically targeted for killing?

Why, my dear friend, it is any number you wish it to be.

What America's police Departments Do Not Want You To Know 
presents analysis of statistical killing by police.  Greater than reported by official sources?  Official sources are not even reporting in compliance with requirements.  Not that they are refusing, required by law systems for reporting have not been established so how can the police agencies be held accountable for concise reporting.  The exact situation they seek might be the answer.  In this information age independent actors can aggregate killing statistics from media reports.

Killing is an important social event.  Especially when it is done in the USA.  From the standpoint of our domestic media, killing in other countries, who does it and exactly who gets killed is a subjective matter depending on media management.  It seems that the media is a biased scorekeeper regarding either foreign or domestic killing.  Reporting specific incidents at the granular level of killing single people but no total score keeping statistics. 

Killing should be important enough to know the statistics, the circumstances for each and every killing in the USA..  The killing  (death by violent means whatever they may be by definition meaning perhaps by other than natural means of death as the default criteria) should be an exact national statistic.  Who caused it may be another matter but that is one of sub class categorization.