Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jb12 1092 days ago
The point is that with a constant amount of assaults, and fewer potential victims, you are more likely to be a victim.
1 comments

Only if you assume random victims of assault. That’s a pretty big assumption
Right, people with small statures who look like pushovers will face a disproportionate amount of the abuse. Big mean looking guys like me usually don't have much to fear, but why should anybody have to put up with it just because they're small and meek?
I rode BART for 16 years. It's not a big assumption.
How is this not probabilistic victim blaming?
I don't think it's victim blaming, it's a valid point.

Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities.

There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.

> There are probably similar qualifiers for assault on the BART.

No, not really. Unless you have data to back that up. Source: I was assaulted outside a BART station randomly.

One more data point:

> Rojas added, "It looks like it was an unprovoked, unwarranted, vicious attack."

https://abc7news.com/bart-stabbing-arrest-john-cowell-lee-oa...

One more

https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2018/news20180408

Nobody is saying that there are no random assaults, they are saying that without data on what percentage of the attacks were completely random, we can't make assumptions that an increase in total number of assaults equates to an increase in total number of random assaults.
> Are you more likely to be shot on the streets of Chicago compared to Boise? Probably, yes, however you're MUCH more likely to get shot on the streets of Chicago if you're involved in gang related activities.

You made the argument that attacks are targeted using an analogy without having data.