HCSOThrowaway

I’m not aware of any definition of “less dangerous” that involves the more dangerous job having less deaths and injuries than the less dangerous job.

I personally think "likelihood of being attacked" and "ability to defend themselves" should also be included in the definition we're working with. Like if Person A is attacked 5 times a day and defends against them without injury 4/5 times, but Person B is attacked 3 times a day and is not trained or equipped to defend themselves so they're hurt 3 times a day, which person is in the more "dangerous" position?

Want to slow your roll and figure out if you’re talking to the same person before going off?

Fair enough, I didn't (and routinely don't) check usernames before responding. Sounds exhausting. Pedantry accepted though; feel free to redact the part of that comment that involves my asking if you realized you were wrong and replace it with something about you realizing they were wrong. Better? You ready to respond to my pointing out that you're doing a Red Herring now, or is there some other pedantic thing you want to focus on to distract from the broad strokes of you screwing up?

Not at all. If your argument is that cops should get to have guns and shoot people because their job is dangerous, so should pizza delivery drivers, who are more likely to get assaulted than cops.

Yep, I also believe delivery drivers should be allowed to carry a gun. Same with taxi cab drivers and other people who are more likely to be (successfully) attacked and hurt or killed than cops are.

See how using a straw-man argument can make for an awkward situation where you fleshing out your attack into a(n implied) question about their real position can make you look like a fool?

Cops have a less dangerous job than pizza delivery. Yes, per capita. And COVID or a cop’s own bad driving is more likely to kill them than someone with a gun.

Depending on your definition of "less dangerous," yeah. Doesn't really refute my argument, though. Did you want to divert the discussion with that Red Herring because you realized you were wrong or did you just want to talk about something else today and didn't realize that's outside the scope of this discussion?

If you wouldn’t accept a pizza delivery kid blowing someone away because they reached into their pocket, you shouldn’t accept it from a cop.

Straw-man.

Build a large enough catalogue of bulk data and anything can be used to track you.

We bought "It's just so we can catch the terrorists!" hook, line, and sinker post-9/11.

But when "terrorism" is redefined as "making people in power upset," we're in big trouble.

So don't say anything rude about Donald Trump or the FBI will seek you out:

https://invidious.perennialte.ch/watch?v=QS4bVx74nxU

So intent is the main thing, for you? One malicious murder is worse than a hundred negligent manslaughters?

Is there not more intent to murder involved in a mass shooter than a cop shooting someone trying to shoot the cop? Or are you one of those people who thinks that cops only sign up to be cops because they'll have a better chance to kill people, and every single death-by-cop is murder, even in self-defense?

I haven't heard a single person call for doctors to be abolished, despite them being 50-100x more deadly, and yes, despite them being just as bigoted as cops, as you rightfully point out.

What question are you answering with that?

How do you feel about XYZ?

"it means you're an idiot."

or

Do you XYZ?

"it means you're an idiot."

Look up Tamir Rice.

I'm well aware of Tamir Rice. You're completely unaware of how statistics work.

Unless you think Tamir Rice is 100% of black children holding things, and no black child has ever held anything before nor will hold anything again? That's your position here?

Rread this article about how the police works internally by an ex-officer. There is nothing that can be done at this point to reform the American police other than a complete do-over.

So your counter to my statement of fact that law enforcement has been reformed over time is some interview with a single guy, and your re-statement of an impossible to prove or disprove position?

M8, are you intentionally wasting both of our time? What are you trying to accomplish by such obvious bad faith tactics?

What did we get from Detroit? Bloated low tech shit boxes that barely make it past warranty.

Don't forget the bailouts:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_bankruptcy

Context doesn’t bring dead people back to life.

True, but refutes nothing I said.

Reducing higher numbers of dead to a “per capita” statistic is straight up lying to dismiss the pain of communities destroyed by police violence.

I don't think you know what "lying" means.

Unless they’re black and holding something, on which case it becomes 100%.

A straight up lie. See earlier point about ridiculous arguments.

You cannot reform the police.

You definitely can. Virtually all societies have improved their police over the short and long term.

If you heard what they say about civilians in a daily basis you’d be demanding all of their heads on pikes like everyone who wants ICE to be abolished and every agent trialed for crimes against humanity.

No I wouldn't. I generally do not call for the execution of assholes, let alone displaying their corpses to out-do them on cruelty.

https://invidious.perennialte.ch/watch?v=cLBospQs9Hk

When we're trying to do an Apples to Apples comparison, implying cops are more deadly than mass shooters, context is important.

Put a kid in front of a mass shooter, they'll shoot them.

Put a kid in front of a cop, they'll shoot them 0.00001% of the time (citation needed, feel free to do the math on total police encounters vs. shootings of children).

That's bad, but to state or imply that they're even close to as bad is ridiculous and makes people interested in police reform look ridiculous.