Right.

“Just part & parcel of living in a _big city_.”

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3801018/Terror-atta...

Statistically, most crimes occur in big cities because that's where the people are.

My town of 80k, which feels perfectly safe 99% of the time, has had >2x the per capita murder rate of NYC, and has for years.

My town of 104k, which actually is perfectly safe 99% of the time, has less than 1/5th the per capita murder rate of NYC, and has for years.

I dare say my town is a great deal safer than your town. I wonder what the difference is.

you seem to be responding to the wrong post

This quote has been repeated for years and is completely misquoted as it literally splices together parts of the quote. The original quote was

"Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job, you got to support the security services."

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/what-londons-mayor-really-s...

This is a quote that I'm sure you would agree with, as would anyone. Stop spreading this misinformation.

I suppose we should bury our heads in the sand while our fellow citizens are being robbed, stabbed, etc? Sounds pretty convenient for a different set of political beliefs.

A person is stabbed to death in public in downtown SF, and you're suggesting it was not a random attack? That it was a premeditated killing, in public, with a knife? Give me a break. This is not an isolated incident. We are absolutely sick of this in SF.

High-profile crypto entrepreneurs are are not exactly random targets.

Could it be random? Sure.

> use someone’s death to advance your politics

Are you shying away from discussing politics whenever there is a school shooting as well?

Sure. I object equally when someone says “we don’t know the facts, but assuming the killer was Islamic, this is further proof of how bad Islam is” (substitute Christian or whatever).

It is always poor taste to project one’s politics into the uncertainty around a tragedy and then turn around and use the imagined facts to argue politics.

I’m less opposed to using established, non-imaginary facts.

> I’m less opposed to using established, non-imaginary facts.

This to me sounds like you like to talk politics when a tragedy strikes, but only if the politics is on your side.

For example, SF decaying can be argued as an established, non-imaginary fact. It's easy to hide behind "facts", 'statistics", "science" to push your political point, thinking you are infallible. Even more so, a lot of people say "it's not even politics, it's basic science" - but these are all fallacies. In the end, almost everything can be traced back to politics.

I can't think of a stronger reason to start getting political, to start rallying for a change, than when brothers-in-arms, when innocents, are falling to the sword.

What change do you rally for when you don’t know if it was a targeted murder for personal motives or a stochastic result of a broken down political system?

The truth hurts

I can see why people would think the second point is "poor taste" (although I'm not sure if I agree), but definitely don't see why the first would be "questionable".