4 ms·
You are playing a dangerous game here. The above poster said: > from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or thei
by kilburn 6y ago
You are playing a dangerous game here.
The above poster said:
> from their point of view the police are the people most likely to assault or kill them or their children on the street, more so than random criminals
Leaving the "more so than criminals" part out of it:
- By your numbers, 10% of the killings are done by police officers.
- Police officers account for much less than 10% of the population.
Hence, a random police officer is much more likely to kill you than a random person.
Now, the "more so than random criminals" part is much harder to pin down. Anyway, you can't know whether someone is a criminal or not just by seeing them on the street, so I don't even see a point in trying.
- collyw 6y agoWhen it comes to violet criminals you can filter down a fair bit by age and gender.
- throwaway_jobs 6y ago> - By your numbers, 10% of the killings are done by police officers. - Police officers account for much less than 10% of the population. Hence, a random police officer is much more likely to kill you than a random person. It’s odd you would say I’m playing a dangerous game...we are talking about murder, and if you or a loved one is murdered there is a 90% chance you will be murdered by a non-LEO. Not to mention we are playing a dangerous game by converting all justified police killings to murder.
- jonfw 6y agoThe point being made was your kid is more likely to be endangered by police than random criminals. Your math here isn't really attempting to prove or disprove that point, instead you're talking about likelihood of police vs average american. That's a pretty uncontroversial statement you just made, as police engage in a much more dangerous line of work than your average american.