I'm not a fan of the article, and I'm quite glad that the Gentle Giant will never attack another innocent shopkeeper, but the author may be making a rare accurate point. If more than 2/3 of patrols are cops working in pairs, then the 1/3 killed while working alone would indicate that patrolling alone is more dangerous, which makes sense. [As an exaggerated hypothetical, imagine that 1/100 patrol alone and 1/3 of those killed are working alone - clearly that would support the author's point.]
Since Ferguson probably can’t budget the way LA does, I agree with their decision to have officers patrol alone and cover more ground in general. A dead thug is a very small price to pay for a safe community at a reasonable cost.
Note: I’d say the same thing about a white thug. My first thug encounter was with white union thugs, and I would have been thrilled if a concerned cop/citizen had shot both of them dead. Actually, I still hate union thugs, and I would be pleased even today to hear how those thugs died if we’re lucky enough to be rid of them.
If I have 3000 cops killed in a given time period, and 2000 of them were killed while with a partner, that doesn’t support the notion that patrolling with a partner is safer. Now, if the author got into how many cops we’re talking about overall who patrol alone versus patrol with a partner, now those numbers can start to mean something. As it is, his own point is defeated by citing the statistic in a relatively misleading way.