8x more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist

PostmodernProphet said:
well, right off the bat the "authority" you claim comes to 5X rather than 8X, secondly, the claim comes third hand from whatever the actual numbers are with no hint of what numbers were used to compare or where the numbers came from, even they even came from somewhere beyond someone's imagination.......

seriously, how did they derive at the number and for what year.....did they compare four deaths at the hands of anti-abortion activists in 2003 versus 32 deaths at the hand of police officers?.....what is the basis for the claim?.....
Click to expand...
what 'authority' are you talking about and can you link to it?

and you do realize that the 8x and 11% are about two totally different subjects, right? I realize that the closeness of the posts and topic discussion may not have made that clear, so I want to clarify if you're aware of that and get your response to the 11% number.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
what 'authority' are you talking about and can you link to it?
Click to expand...

???.....I've been trying to get YOU to link to it for pages now.....I don't think it ever existed.......

and no, I didn't realize they were two different topics....I thought you submitted the 11% to back up your 8x claim....I guess then that you have no evidence whatsoever for the 8x claim......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???.....I've been trying to get YOU to link to it for pages now.....I don't think it ever existed.......

and no, I didn't realize they were two different topics....I thought you submitted the 11% to back up your 8x claim....I guess then that you have no evidence whatsoever for the 8x claim......
Click to expand...
the 8x claim is from the NSC of 2004, which has been mentioned several times. Now, with the exception of yourself, i've not found ANY website or news article claiming that the 8x figure is a lie and I would think that there would be something out there if it was, don't you?

Now, to explain the 11% number.

In post 19 you asked - "if you are not in the act of committing a crime, what are the odds you're going to be shot by a policeman?......."

to which I replied in post 22 with - "you've seen enough of my posts on here to know that it's possible. according to gunfacts.info, cops hit innocent bystanders 11% of the time when discharging their weapons."

Now, I don't know what that makes the odds exactly, but if over 10% of the time in an officer involved shooting that gets an innocent bystander hit, it just might make that 8x figure more plausible even though they are two separate topics.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
????....it is NOT from the NSC.....I thought we already covered it....
Click to expand...
from the OP, "The Progressive Review recently crunched the numbers from a 2004 National Safety Council Estimates, a report based on data from The National Center for Health Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau as well as 2003 mortality data from the Center for Disease Control"

so tell us again how that is not from the NSC???????? unless you'd like to claim that the progressive review is lying?

PostmodernProphet said:
screw the 11% number....if it has nothing to do with your 8x claim it's irrelevant.....
Click to expand...
you asked a question in post 19 and I gave you the answer to that. if you wish to ignore its application in to the possibility of creating plausibility to the 8x number, that's your issue, not mine.
 
LOL, will SmarterThanFew claim PiMP is a liberal troll next ?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
wait, you're just tipping to that now?......
Click to expand...
not just now, no. But all you ever alluded to was that you wanted to see the original report and not outright declaring that the review lied. Since i've been unable to find any inkling of a rebuttal in the world of media (with the exception of the usual pro cop sites) that categorically states that the report is a lie, one has to take the report as truth. Now, unless YOU can find some rebuttal or report that debunks the reviews article, you only have two options left. ignorance or commence your own study to debunk it and get it published.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top