Read back: I said that I didn't before you even asked. I also suggested that even without having the data, we can agree that Philadelphia policemen have a riskier life in Philadelphia non-policemen. Since that's apparently not the case, all you had to say was "no, I don't agree".
Yes, in my haste, i neglected to state that i don't agree, which accounts for the seeming contradiction in what i wrote. Killing a police officer might be a crime of passion, but, in general, police officers are wearing kevlar vests and well armed, and i not only think it unreasonable to assume that they are at a higher risk, but in fact would suggest that they would be a lower risk, because of the increased risk to any notional assailant.
My object throughout is to point out that these are meaningless comparisons, because the samples offered are not comparable.
You just watched me compare them, which proves they're comparable.[/quote]
That's merely a word game--that doesn't mean that they're comparable, or that attempting the comparison is a valid exercise. I forget the fallacy which this embodies, and don't intend to go look it up, but we both know that saying a thing is not evidence that the saying is a valid rhetorical exercise.
More seriously, I think it's prefectly legitimate to make the following statement. "A young American has many options of putting himself at risk. Two of them are (1) to join the Army and be deployed in Iraq, as well as (2) to move to a black neighborhood in Philadelphia. Option #1 is safer than option #2." Whether or not I like the meaning of this comparison, it definitely means something to me.
It is not, however, established that Option #1 can reasonably be considered safer than Option #2, which is why the lack of evidence for the argument is telling. Once again, the comparison is only valid, as i see it, if you compare all security personnel in Iraq to all security personnel in Washington (the original venue of this silly little exercise). I have no reason to consider these to be valid comparisons.