Nonetheless, I don't want to come off as a liar, so let me explain. Also understood; stats mean nothing, family means everything!
I said there's only a 0.5% chance an of an abduction leading to murder, but everyone else thinks it seems more like 50-70%!!! What gives!
Per the website:
“Of child victims of "stereotypical kidnappings, "40 percent are killed, 4 percent are never found”
Ok, but:
In 1999 there were 115 “stereotypical kidnappings”
Interesting?
So, 2002 there were 69,000 “abductions” which is what I believe we’re concerned with, given we all agree there is limited information in the scenario and a split-second decision is being made. (this is actually .17% of a chance)
I stated .5%, why?
Massaging the data? Maybe. Lets assume there were less “abductions” in 1999, say about 50,000? I think that’s fair. Lets also assume that another 40,000 are easily (split-second mind you) identifiable as someone not willing to kill the child. Consider your ability to ID a non-killer... So 40% are killed, of a pool of (after the fact) "stereotypical" kidnappings, means only 46 murdered. So 46 divided by our final, reasonable and heavily reduced pool, means about .5% of abductions, relevant to our scenario, result in a murder.
OK so .5% means what?
It just means that, given hindsight is 20/20, its much less like that an “abduction” will lead to murder. This is reasonable because, in this scenario, there’s no investigation, there’s no analysis, there’s nothing but the fact that someone is “abducting” a child, hence it gets immediately classified as an abduction and put in the 69k pot, which I feel like was reduced with a decent logic.
Again, who the EFF cares! Just don't think that I'm crazy or lying without reason.