Anecdotal Evidence

[Mister Agenda]

I know you've had Bayesian logic explained to you before, RR. Everything involved in a reported police shooting is incomparably more plausible than a claim of the supernatural, paranormal, or cryptids because such an incident is entirely composed of things that we KNOW exist and KNOW can happen. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be reasonably skeptical, we should be reasonably skeptical of everything, especially in a world where lots of people just make stuff up to stir the pot...but Bayesian logic determines what level of skepticism is reasonable, and you use it for everything else but your religion.

I am skeptical about your claim of Bayesian logic.  It may be able to tell you what you are more likely to see today, or given no other information (or conflicting accounts), what someone else was more likely to have seen.  However it doesn't follow, that because something is more common, that it more likely occurred vs the less common option, especially when there is evidence for the latter.

 

How common it is, is not the point. It's what is KNOWN to be true by any normal person: cops exist, bullets and guns exist, cops shoot people sometimes, cops shoot the wrong people some times; these are facts. They are known. If there had never been a police shooting of a civilian ever, one would have a degree of plausibility for the claim a cop shot an innocent civilian even if, up to this point, only the first two things were known; since the rest of it does not contradict in any way what we know to be possible.

Also, please support you claim, that I use it for everything else but my religion.

More of a charitable supposition than a claim. If you're claiming to be irrational in other areas of your life, I'm happy to take your word for it.