> It was the most logical one with the data available at that moment.

Logical and appropriate/reasonable are two distinct entities.

I can see two coin tosses, and if they came up heads, it is certainly logical to conclude that the coin is heavily biased. Understanding that the quality of the data is poor and that one probably should suspend judgements until further data is in is a sign of maturity.

I've seen this play out over the decades: Hans Reiser, Ellen Pao, etc are common examples.

There is nothing logical about assuming that a high profile person only in town for a few days would get stabbed multiple times randomly in the middle of a wealthy area at 2:30am on a Monday. It can happen, but no assumptions about it are logical given that most violent crimes are committed by people who know the victim and San Francisco is not remarkable in its rate of violent crime.

>See? We are smarter than all of those people

The only person I see doing that here is you. It wasn't logical, it was emotional based on preconceptions about the crime in the city.

The data available says that about 10% of homicides are committed by a stranger. What data are you referring to when you say it was the logical conclusion?

How did people try to "help"? By posting comments on social media?

You need to recalibrate your expectations. The majority of murders are not totally random, senseless attacks. Getting murdered by a random junkie is not a common thing.