IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 21st November 2021, 02:19 AM   #41
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
The Judge agreed that she had reasonable grounds to fear for the lives of herself and her children. In his ruling he explained the intent of the youths may have been to scare and offend and not physically injure - but the fact that the rocks could have caused serious injury and even possibly death was what had to be considered.
That's bonkers. Did she call for emergency services? Fire a warning shot?

Someone almost ran me over once. I should have grabbed fistfuls of his shirt, pulled him out of his car, ripped off his limbs, and beaten him to death. "Why are you hitting yourself?" Ya never what kind of deranged lunatic might be out there, so best to act like one.

Canada has a deserved reputation for civility and kindness, but some of the dumbest dildos are from up there. Some of Ayn Rand's most militant devotees were moose *******.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 10:56 AM   #42
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
 
Skeptical Greg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Just past ' Resume Speed ' .
Posts: 17,565
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
What's to stop me feeling my life is threatened, specifically personally, in the USA as a tourist? ...
What's to stop you from just staying home or locking yourself in your hotel room if you feel the venue you have chosen is life threatening?
__________________
" The main problem I have with the idea of heaven, is the thought of
spending eternity with most of the people who claim to be going there. "
Skeptical Greg is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 12:39 PM   #43
cmikes
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by Norman Alexander View Post
What's to stop me feeling my life is threatened, specifically personally, in the USA as a tourist? So I would need to pack heat and be prepared to use it whenever, say, some bank guard with gun on his hip wanted to move me to another queue without warning me first. Who knows what the old dodderer would have done to me with that piece! He could have been a secret Marxist or a BLM or even Antifa in disguise! Best to act first and claim Rittenhouse self-defense.

As long as you don't threaten to kill someone if you catch them alone, then ambush them and attempt to carry out your threat, swing a club at the person's head twice, attempt to kick them in the face while wearing heavy work boots, or rush at them with a loaded gun pointed at their head, you should be fine.

Or are you actually claiming the right to assault and attempt to kill someone, as long as you believe that they are more right wing than you are?
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 04:00 PM   #44
Olmstead
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 700
Self-defense laws are a mess when guns are involved. By the time you can be sure that there's a threat of death or serious bodily injury, it's probably already too late for you.

I'm against civilian firearms, but if citizens are allowed to carry guns, people should never start a physical altercation unless they're prepared to die or kill because of it.

Sounds like a scary society.

Last edited by Olmstead; 21st November 2021 at 04:02 PM.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 05:17 PM   #45
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Antimemetics Division
Posts: 54,999
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Self-defense laws are a mess when guns are involved. By the time you can be sure that there's a threat of death or serious bodily injury, it's probably already too late for you.

I'm against civilian firearms, but if citizens are allowed to carry guns, people should never start a physical altercation unless they're prepared to die or kill because of it.

Sounds like a scary society.
I feel like a scary society would be one where people feel safe starting physical altercations with apparently weaker victims.

"The real problem with this outcome is that people like Rosenbaum don't get to win every fight they start" seems like the most perverse and obscene possible reaction.

Personally I'd rather that people who like to start physical altercations have to worry about getting shot for their trouble. But I guess you'd rather see their victims beaten and robbed and raped, than put the aggressor's life in jeopardy.
__________________
There is no Antimemetics Division.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 06:08 PM   #46
Olmstead
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 700
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I feel like a scary society would be one where people feel safe starting physical altercations with apparently weaker victims.

"The real problem with this outcome is that people like Rosenbaum don't get to win every fight they start" seems like the most perverse and obscene possible reaction.

Personally I'd rather that people who like to start physical altercations have to worry about getting shot for their trouble. But I guess you'd rather see their victims beaten and robbed and raped, than put the aggressor's life in jeopardy.
Fair point.

Self-defense laws remain a subjective mess though.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 06:13 PM   #47
cmikes
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I feel like a scary society would be one where people feel safe starting physical altercations with apparently weaker victims.

"The real problem with this outcome is that people like Rosenbaum don't get to win every fight they start" seems like the most perverse and obscene possible reaction.

Personally I'd rather that people who like to start physical altercations have to worry about getting shot for their trouble. But I guess you'd rather see their victims beaten and robbed and raped, than put the aggressor's life in jeopardy.

Like the old (now slightly sexist) saying goes, "There's a word for women and the elderly when guns are banned: prey".
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 06:14 PM   #48
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I feel like a scary society would be one where people feel safe starting physical altercations with apparently weaker victims.

"The real problem with this outcome is that people like Rosenbaum don't get to win every fight they start" seems like the most perverse and obscene possible reaction.

Personally I'd rather that people who like to start physical altercations have to worry about getting shot for their trouble. But I guess you'd rather see their victims beaten and robbed and raped, than put the aggressor's life in jeopardy.
If the standard for deadly force is X, and the person feels safe engaging in fights guaranteed to produce X - 1, then they should feel safe.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 06:15 PM   #49
Olmstead
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Posts: 700
Originally Posted by cmikes View Post
Like the old (now slightly sexist) saying goes, "There's a word for women and the elderly when guns are banned: prey".
Okay, let's not go too far here. Europe isn't some violent hellhole.
Olmstead is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 06:24 PM   #50
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
That's bonkers. Did she call for emergency services? Fire a warning shot?

Someone almost ran me over once. I should have grabbed fistfuls of his shirt, pulled him out of his car, ripped off his limbs, and beaten him to death. "Why are you hitting yourself?" Ya never what kind of deranged lunatic might be out there, so best to act like one.

Canada has a deserved reputation for civility and kindness, but some of the dumbest dildos are from up there. Some of Ayn Rand's most militant devotees were moose *******.


Once again - total ignorance of the law and an incredibly ridiculous scenario don't make any sort of worthwhile post.

Pro-tip: When you come to grips with the difference between an ongoing threat and a threat that is past - try and create a scenario from that which is worth discussing.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 08:24 PM   #51
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Once again - total ignorance of the law and an incredibly ridiculous scenario don't make any sort of worthwhile post.

Pro-tip: When you come to grips with the difference between an ongoing threat and a threat that is past - try and create a scenario from that which is worth discussing.
Yep. Not seeing how an ongoing threat can be in any way seen as analogous to "someone almost ran me over", in the past tense. If the guy in the car turned around for a second attempt, the analogy might make some sense, but in that case I think self-defense would be justified.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st November 2021, 11:51 PM   #52
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
Once again - total ignorance of the law and an incredibly ridiculous scenario don't make any sort of worthwhile post.

Pro-tip: When you come to grips with the difference between an ongoing threat and a threat that is past - try and create a scenario from that which is worth discussing.
Ha, you're... not smart. And you didn't answer my questions. This lady was in a house. What was stopping her from holing up? By your account, she needlessly escalated the confrontation to lethal violence.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
Yep. Not seeing how an ongoing threat can be in any way seen as analogous to "someone almost ran me over", in the past tense. If the guy in the car turned around for a second attempt, the analogy might make some sense, but in that case I think self-defense would be justified.
I didn't know if this was a demented psychopath or an assassin. In either case, he could get out with a gun and finish the job by shooting me dead. I should have beared his arms to be safe. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 05:00 AM   #53
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Ha, you're... not smart. And you didn't answer my questions. This lady was in a house. What was stopping her from holing up? By your account, she needlessly escalated the confrontation to lethal violence.

I was not willing to write out all the evidence that was presented in a four day trial as I didn't want to bore people with all the details.
It was just a general recap to show that Canada has pretty strong self defense laws.

Despite your direct uncivil jab at me and just in case somebody else has the same questions - I will answer your questions.
Just so you know - I actually have gone to the trouble of getting written info from the trial so as to refresh my memory.

She testified that she didn't want to stop watching the idiots as she was afraid their threats of burning down the house with her and her children were in it were real.
She kept watch on the idiots through the windows as best as possible while dodging the rocks they were throwing. The idiots moved together around the house at times and at other times they were split up. To her knowledge they never tried to actually break into the house.
31 rocks had made it into the house through broken windows - the biggest was 2016 grams (just over 4.4 pounds).
177 rocks were found on the lawn close to the wall of the house on the grass suggesting that they had been thrown at the house. There were 106 rocks on the west side of the house suggesting that most of the activity came from the road side of the house.
The rocks found varied in size from 29 grams (just over 1 ounce) to a whopping 5132 grams (just over 11 pounds).

She lived about 20 minutes out of town on a farm where her closest neighbor was almost a mile away. She had phoned the local detachment for help (no 911 at that time) as soon as the idiots arrived - but the sole officer on duty was over 30 miles away as he had been dispatched out of town in the opposite direction.
When questioned by the first cop at the scene - it was her estimation that it was a "long time" from when she called to when she fired. Then - it was a "short time" after she fired to when the cop arrived. When asked to estimate the time in minutes - she estimated about 30 or 40 minutes from the time she called the police to when she shot.

According to dispatch records - the police officer made good time as he got there in just over 31 minutes from the time he was dispatched. Since the subject was dead with a shot to the head and the other idiots had ran off - there was nobody else to corroborate the timing. Her children were aged around 2 and 4 years old.

As to the shooting - she said that she had not thought of making a warning shot as she had only shot the rifle once before and the recoil had almost jarred the gun from her hands. She didn't want to shoot and have the gun fall and not be able to make it work again. The rifle was a Short Magazine Lee–Enfield Mk I - 303 caliber. When seized by the first cop on scene it was found to be loaded with 2 rounds in the attached magazine with the spent casing inside the breach.

Due to the fact she and her children had shut off all her lights so not to present a target in the house - the only illumination on the front and back of the house were 60 watt porch lights. It is speculated after a re-enactment done 6 days later that the rifle may not have been seen by the youths as the light was so dim.

To my knowledge - nobody else has been proven or admitted to being there.
Three youths were identified by tips from the public shortly after the incident and questioned - but they all refused to admit they were there.
There was no DNA testing at the time and after the prosecution decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada - the evidence was all discarded or destroyed.

The judge and later the Appeals Court judges (appeal was heard a little under a year later) all agreed she had a reasonable and probable cause to believe that her life and/or the lives of her children were in immediate danger.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 22nd November 2021 at 05:08 AM.
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 09:05 AM   #54
TomB
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,035
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If the standard for deadly force is X, and the person feels safe engaging in fights guaranteed to produce X - 1, then they should feel safe.
The only fights guaranteed to ony go as far as "X - 1" take place in rings with people officiating to ensure that they don't go past "X - 1."
TomB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 12:40 PM   #55
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If the standard for deadly force is X, and the person feels safe engaging in fights guaranteed to produce X - 1, then they should feel safe.
It's that guarantee that is the sticking point. How, in this strange world, can you ever do that? You can be pretty sure that a person who bumps into you on the street will not try to kill you, but even that is never entirely certain. That, by the way, I know from painful experience. The knife slipped, and thus I am still alive all these years later.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 12:41 PM   #56
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
It's that guarantee that is the sticking point. How, in this strange world, can you ever do that? You can be pretty sure that a person who bumps into you on the street will not try to kill you, but even that is never entirely certain. That, by the way, I know from painful experience. The knife slipped, and thus I am still alive all these years later.
There is no sticking point because it is an if-then statement.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 01:47 PM   #57
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
I was not willing to write out all the evidence that was presented in a four day trial as I didn't want to bore people with all the details.
It was just a general recap to show that Canada has pretty strong self defense laws.
I didn't ask for all of the evidence presented in a four-day trial, but I did want to know the number of rocks and their size (in grams). Thanks.

A problem with "strong" self defense laws is that they seem to encourage people to go looking for trouble. One of the main purposes of a state is to out-source conflict resolution to a relatively neutral third party. In the Rittenhouse case, Rittenhouse's would-be captors were also acting like vigilantes: "He shot someone, get him!"

Speaking of conflict resolution, a more relevant detail is the expected police response time rather than the fact rocks could have caused serious injury. This is an edge-of-civilization case, where honor culture prevails over dignity culture. Now, it's easy to say what should have happened in retrospect, so that's what I'm going to do: She should have told the kids that the police were on their way, and that she had a gun. If they continued, she should have fired a warning shot.

Given the response time and all of the unknown unknowns, I could see myself voting to acquit. But, yeah, kids presumably on foot, travel out of their way in the boonies to harass this lady, throw rocks for more than a half-hour, before maybe killing everyone inside by setting the house ablaze. The solution is to take aim at one of them because it's not like they'll self-righteously respond, immediately or in the future, by actually burning the house down. Real smart thinking.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 03:15 PM   #58
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
There is no sticking point because it is an if-then statement.
Pardon me for forgetting that these ideas are functionally useless exercises in theory. Out here in the wild wild world of reality the theory hits a sticking point wherein the "if-then-ness" remains a guess until it's too late.

Although I suppose the theory could be right. After all, they guy who stabbed me for bumping him in the street missed my spinal cord by a generous 3/4 of an inch, so yeah, the equation works, right?
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 03:23 PM   #59
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
Pardon me for forgetting that these ideas are functionally useless exercises in theory. Out here in the wild wild world of reality the theory hits a sticking point wherein the "if-then-ness" remains a guess until it's too late.

Although I suppose the theory could be right. After all, they guy who stabbed me for bumping him in the street missed my spinal cord by a generous 3/4 of an inch, so yeah, the equation works, right?
it works, yes
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:46 PM   #60
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
it works, yes
I suspect it works about the same as noting that parachutes must be nearly foolproof because nobody complains when they don't open.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 07:56 PM   #61
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I didn't know if this was a demented psychopath or an assassin. In either case, he could get out with a gun and finish the job by shooting me dead. I should have beared his arms to be safe. Better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
From a Bayesian perspective, your credence that it was someone who was deliberately trying to kill you should certainly have been much less than that it was an accident, possibly caused by lack of attention.

Which again, is very different from people clearly deliberately throwing stones and shouting threats.

Anything is possible, but some things are much more likely than others, and we should base our actions on a reasonable assessment of what's actually likely to be going on. In the unlikely case that the driver turned out to be a demented psychopath or an assassin, I'd be entirely forgiving of self-defense after that became clear. Otherwise your logic applies not just to the guy who almost ran you over, but also to the guy walking down the street minding his own business: he could turn out to be a demented psychopath or assassin too.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:00 PM   #62
sir drinks-a-lot
Philosopher
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 5,028
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
From...too.
What happened to the avatar?
__________________
I don't like that man. I must get to know him better. --Abraham Lincoln
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2021, 08:35 PM   #63
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by sir drinks-a-lot View Post
What happened to the avatar?
Haha, thanks for noticing, just felt like a change.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 05:37 AM   #64
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Question

Originally Posted by bruto View Post
I suspect it works about the same as noting that parachutes must be nearly foolproof because nobody complains when they don't open.
?

Except that my post was comment about how the system should be designed and what kind of emotional state it would engender. So I have been pretty confused about what you are getting at.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 06:45 AM   #65
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
From a Bayesian perspective, your credence that it was someone who was deliberately trying to kill you should certainly have been much less than that it was an accident, possibly caused by lack of attention.

Which again, is very different from people clearly deliberately throwing stones and shouting threats.

Anything is possible, but some things are much more likely than others, and we should base our actions on a reasonable assessment of what's actually likely to be going on. In the unlikely case that the driver turned out to be a demented psychopath or an assassin, I'd be entirely forgiving of self-defense after that became clear. Otherwise your logic applies not just to the guy who almost ran you over, but also to the guy walking down the street minding his own business: he could turn out to be a demented psychopath or assassin too.
I walk down the street all the time. As far as I know, nobody has come this | | close to killing me.

And of course some things are more likely than others. That's... kind of the whole point. Shooting a kid dead was rather unnecessary. Umpteen rocks thrown without much consequence and police on their way. Having the presence of mind of phoning a neighbor, firing a warning shot rather than claiming a life. Duuuur.
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 07:55 AM   #66
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
?

Except that my post was comment about how the system should be designed and what kind of emotional state it would engender. So I have been pretty confused about what you are getting at.
What I'm getting at is what I would have thought the fairly obvious fact that it is not, in fact possible to know reliably what another person's stopping point is to be in all interactions. There can be a general understanding of it, the "reasonable person" rule, which can reasonably govern our actions, but the closer you get to the limit the less reliable it is. There is no binary "x-1" point.

If the standard for deadly violence is X, sure, you can feel safe if you believe an altercation will go only to some perceived X-1, but it is a belief, not a guarantee, and since most people realize that it is not a guarantee, and the very idea of what constitutes X can vary, the "feel safe" criterion becomes vague and meaningless. People can't even agree on what X is.

Some people who think they're staying below the X-1 level will be perceived as approaching too close to X. Some people are nutty or seeking to do harm and will jump unpredictably to X.

There is no true "feel safe" point. You play the odds, weigh the likelihoods, and hope for the best. Unfortunately, since many people believe they will be victims based on racism or misconception or misperception, and at least a few believe they will not be victims based on a failure to notice that others are crazy or motivated by unknown forces, the result will always be messy.

I think the very idea of speaking about "how the system should be designed" consigns the idea to the world of impracticable theory.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 05:40 PM   #67
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I walk down the street all the time. As far as I know, nobody has come this | | close to killing me.
The person also didn't turn out to be an assassin, so what's your point? My claim isn't that most people are likely to be assassins: my claim is that like the person who almost ran you over, they're not. Are you disputing that? Are you claiming that the person who almost ran you over was likely to be trying to run you over? If not the equivalence you were trying to make is false.

Quote:
And of course some things are more likely than others. That's... kind of the whole point.
It wasn't your point when you said someone who almost ran you over could have been an assassin, which is what I was responding to.

Quote:
Shooting a kid dead was rather unnecessary. Umpteen rocks thrown without much consequence and police on their way. Having the presence of mind of phoning a neighbor, firing a warning shot rather than claiming a life. Duuuur.
I haven't actually claimed that she was right to shoot the kid, only that the situation is different from you being almost run over in the street.

Perhaps "You're right, my analogy was bad, but she still should have fired a warning shot rather than shoot the kid" would be a reasonable response.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 06:39 PM   #68
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by bruto View Post

There is no true "feel safe" point. You play the odds, weigh the likelihoods, and hope for the best.
I'm not sure how a person could even have an idea of the odds to play them without something like a degree in criminology.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 07:17 PM   #69
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
I'm not sure how a person could even have an idea of the odds to play them without something like a degree in criminology.
Which is likely why it goes wrong so often in real life. Even if you are right and you need a degree in criminology to get the odds right, they're still just odds. We all guess.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 08:00 PM   #70
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
The person also didn't turn out to be an assassin, so what's your point? My claim isn't that most people are likely to be assassins: my claim is that like the person who almost ran you over, they're not. Are you disputing that? Are you claiming that the person who almost ran you over was likely to be trying to run you over? If not the equivalence you were trying to make is false.
Are you really this dim? The analogy involved me tearing off a person's arms and beating him to death -- a physical impossibility. It was always a reduction to absurdity, and I was always playing along. The difference is that you are being unintentionally obtuse. Speaking of motive...

Intention matters, ceteris paribus, but the larger point is rational risk assessment and an appropriate counter-response. All other things being equal, someone who intentionally tries to run me over with a car is a greater threat than someone who accidentally endangers me with a car. You keep harping about intention, but you need to put down that fool's gold and weigh all relevant factors. Someone who DELIBERATELY throws a french fry at me is not as much of a danger as a reckless driver. This is elementary. Throwing rocks while shielded in a house is not a grave mortal threat. Taking aim at someone is.

Missing from the original scenario were kind of important details: It's in a rural area, at night, the police response time is over a half-hour and there were alleged threats of burning the house down. But that still doesn't mean take aim and shoot. One threat deserves another: "I've called the police. I have a gun." Also, honesty is not required. The aggressors probably weren't being honest. Were kids on foot in Bumblefuck really intending to set a house ablaze? So lie: "I've called the police and they're on their way. We have guns."
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 09:45 PM   #71
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
While I more or less agree with Cain's take above, and something like that is how I would likely play this scenario out, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that the next thing said after "We have guns" is "So do we....bang." Not likely, but not impossible.

We could look at it another way, too, perhaps. Whatever their armament and eventual intention, the kids attacked a woman alone with children, with the express intention of scaring the **** out of the occupant. The smashed windows, hid in the darkness, and threatened to burn down the house. Sure, they were young and stupid and probably more hateful than harmful, but they were threatening to burn a woman and her kids to death, and backing it up by smashing the windows. Ever thrown a 4+ pound rock through a window? Try it and see how far away from the window you can do it from. They split up at times, it's said. Could one have been kindling a fire under a porch or through a smashed basement window while the victims were cowering inside in the dark? It turns out they didn't, but whose fault is it if she thought they would? Could she even be sure she knew how many of them there were? You're asking her to bet her (and her childrens') life on being right.

Sure, in calm retrospect you can say, of course she should have reported that she'd called the police, and she should have fired a warning shot if she had enough bullets to risk. But the plan of scaring the bajeezus out of her succeeded.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)

Last edited by bruto; 23rd November 2021 at 09:47 PM.
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd November 2021, 10:09 PM   #72
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
While I more or less agree with Cain's take above, and something like that is how I would likely play this scenario out, it is not outside of the realm of possibility that the next thing said after "We have guns" is "So do we....bang." Not likely, but not impossible.

We could look at it another way, too, perhaps. Whatever their armament and eventual intention, the kids attacked a woman alone with children, with the express intention of scaring the **** out of the occupant. The smashed windows, hid in the darkness, and threatened to burn down the house. Sure, they were young and stupid and probably more hateful than harmful, but they were threatening to burn a woman and her kids to death, and backing it up by smashing the windows. Ever thrown a 4+ pound rock through a window? Try it and see how far away from the window you can do it from. They split up at times, it's said. Could one have been kindling a fire under a porch or through a smashed basement window while the victims were cowering inside in the dark? It turns out they didn't, but whose fault is it if she thought they would? Could she even be sure she knew how many of them there were? You're asking her to bet her (and her childrens') life on being right.

Sure, in calm retrospect you can say, of course she should have reported that she'd called the police, and she should have fired a warning shot if she had enough bullets to risk. But the plan of scaring the bajeezus out of her succeeded.
If we are applying the reasonable person standard, I would conclude a reasonable person would understand they do not have answers to all those what-ifs. Therefore, a reasonable person would not use deadly force.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 12:19 AM   #73
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,140
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If we are applying the reasonable person standard, I would conclude a reasonable person would understand they do not have answers to all those what-ifs. Therefore, a reasonable person would not use deadly force.
But what you're saying there is that if you don't know the answer, you should act as if you do. You're suggesting that if you're not certain whether a person has the ability and intention to kill you, you should behave as if you are certain that he won't. If you're alone, it's a morally certain way to behave which insures that nobody other than yourself will die, but if you're looking out for your children, I think it becomes more complicated. When you're trying to calculate what to do, the consequence is important. How you respond to a risk will depend mightily on whether the result of a bad guess is a black eye or an empty wallet or having your children murdered.

We can still fault the woman in this case, perhaps, for a poor evaluation of the what-if situation, and say she should have acted with more moderation and less lethal panic, but her failure was in what she decided, not that she decided.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

Quand il dit "cuic" le moineau croit tout dire. (When he's tweeted the sparrow thinks he's said it all. (Jules Renard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 03:04 AM   #74
rockinkt
Master Poster
 
rockinkt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 2,263
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
I didn't ask for all of the evidence presented in a four-day trial, but I did want to know the number of rocks and their size (in grams). Thanks.

A problem with "strong" self defense laws is that they seem to encourage people to go looking for trouble. One of the main purposes of a state is to out-source conflict resolution to a relatively neutral third party. In the Rittenhouse case, Rittenhouse's would-be captors were also acting like vigilantes: "He shot someone, get him!"

Speaking of conflict resolution, a more relevant detail is the expected police response time rather than the fact rocks could have caused serious injury. This is an edge-of-civilization case, where honor culture prevails over dignity culture. Now, it's easy to say what should have happened in retrospect, so that's what I'm going to do: She should have told the kids that the police were on their way, and that she had a gun. If they continued, she should have fired a warning shot.

Given the response time and all of the unknown unknowns, I could see myself voting to acquit. But, yeah, kids presumably on foot, travel out of their way in the boonies to harass this lady, throw rocks for more than a half-hour, before maybe killing everyone inside by setting the house ablaze. The solution is to take aim at one of them because it's not like they'll self-righteously respond, immediately or in the future, by actually burning the house down. Real smart thinking.
I guess a young East Indian immigrant woman with English very much her second language, being threatened and harassed by a bunch of young men, in fear for her life and those of her children, may have had a different take on things than you.

I would suggest your knowledge and experience shooting firearms might be greater than hers. For a small person who had fired a powerful firearm once and who claimed she almost dropped it from the recoil - firing a warning shot would not have been the wise thing to do if there was a chance the idiots would increase their attack and she was no longer able to fire the gun after dropping it.

If you knew anything about the Punjabi culture she came from - you would realize the idea of a bunch of young men harassing and raping and killing a young woman is not really rare. Punishment for that type of crime is rare - especially if done by Hindus on Sikhs where Hindus are the majority and they control the police and justice system.
Young women are also in great danger if they have married "outside their class" or against their parent's wishes.

Was shooting a smart thing to do? Who knows? Seems to have worked. But then again - I'm not going to try and pretend I know the fear that she had for herself and her children and what horrible scenarios were running through her mind.

As for me - I certainly would have not even have taken my firearm out of my safe.
My firearm would be the absolute last gasp resort if all else had failed.
That is my training and my mindset. But then again - I am over 6 ft tall, led a very active and physical life, am experienced in all manner of physical and verbal confrontations, and I am certainly not easily intimidated.
But then again - I have seen purportedly brave men crumble under the smallest threat.
Best not to try and second guess what is going through the mind of an individual. You can listen to their story and try and judge whether they are telling the truth or not - but no-one can say for a certainty - IMHO.
__________________
"Townes Van Zandt is the best songwriter in the whole world and I'll stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table in my cowboy boots and say that." Steve Earle

"I've met Bob Dylan's bodyguards and if Steve Earle thinks he can stand on Bob Dylan's coffee table, he's sadly mistaken." Townes Van Zandt

Last edited by rockinkt; 24th November 2021 at 03:06 AM.
rockinkt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 06:01 AM   #75
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 21,373
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
But what you're saying there is that if you don't know the answer, you should act as if you do. You're suggesting that if you're not certain whether a person has the ability and intention to kill you, you should behave as if you are certain that he won't. If you're alone, it's a morally certain way to behave which insures that nobody other than yourself will die, but if you're looking out for your children, I think it becomes more complicated. When you're trying to calculate what to do, the consequence is important. How you respond to a risk will depend mightily on whether the result of a bad guess is a black eye or an empty wallet or having your children murdered.

We can still fault the woman in this case, perhaps, for a poor evaluation of the what-if situation, and say she should have acted with more moderation and less lethal panic, but her failure was in what she decided, not that she decided.
The reasonable person standard for deadly force does not have a clause for who or how many is at risk. This why I'm saying it doesn't make sense.

I have no issue with people that take a risk and are willing to accept the consequences. But we are talking about people who want immunity from those consequences. They are evading consequence.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 05:59 PM   #76
cmikes
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 547
Originally Posted by Olmstead View Post
Okay, let's not go too far here. Europe isn't some violent hellhole.

Yeah, I agree. Like a lot of folk sayings, there's definitely hyperbole involved. But I also think that gun control laws that, by definition, only apply to law abiding citizens aren't necessarily a good thing. If the result of gun control is that criminals keep their guns while their victims are disarmed, it could certainly do more harm than good.
cmikes is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 06:03 PM   #77
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 74,445
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
If we are applying the reasonable person standard, I would conclude a reasonable person would understand they do not have answers to all those what-ifs. Therefore, a reasonable person would not use deadly force.
The problem with the reasonable person standard is that under pressure, reasonable people have a tendency to become unreasonable.
__________________
We are all #KenBehrens
arthwollipot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 07:51 PM   #78
Border Reiver
Philosopher
 
Border Reiver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,720
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
The problem with the reasonable person standard is that under pressure, reasonable people have a tendency to become unreasonable.
Not an unreasonable position. Generally, courts start with the prosecution establishing the facts of the case. To make use of self-defence the Defence needs to establish, based on the facts, that the Defendant's actions were reasonable. In the case rockint brought up it was considered reasonable that under the circumstances (night, unknown number of assailants throwing rocks large enough to cause serious injury or death and yelling they might try to burn the house down and protecting 2 young children) for the woman to resort to lethal force.

Canada does not generally require that the Defendant first try less than lethal means if confronted with a situation that is likely to result in death or serious injury - it does require that the force used be proportional to the threat.
__________________
Questions, comments, queries, bitches, complaints, rude gestures and/or remarks?
Border Reiver is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 09:14 PM   #79
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 14,960
Originally Posted by Cain View Post
Are you really this dim? The analogy involved me tearing off a person's arms and beating him to death -- a physical impossibility. It was always a reduction to absurdity, and I was always playing along. The difference is that you are being unintentionally obtuse. Speaking of motive...
You made an analogy to make a point. Your analogy failed, and thus your point isn't made. If you want to defend the usefulness of your analogy in arguing your point, feel free. If not, it'd probably be useful to just admit that it was a bad analogy and move on.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th November 2021, 11:15 PM   #80
Cain
Straussian
 
Cain's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 14,743
Originally Posted by rockinkt View Post
I guess a young East Indian immigrant woman with English very much her second language, being threatened and harassed by [three] young men, in fear for her life and those of her children, may have had a different take on things than you.

I would suggest your knowledge and experience shooting firearms might be greater than hers. For a small person who had fired a powerful firearm once and who claimed she almost dropped it from the recoil - firing a warning shot would not have been the wise thing to do if there was a chance the idiots would increase their attack and she was no longer able to fire the gun after dropping it.
And yet she scored a head shot. She was afraid she'd drop the gun and then be at the mercy of the "bunch" of men (minus one) angered for revenge, but nevertheless risked killing one in the first place. It's an interesting calculation -- that a dead friend might not arouse vengeance in the bunch of men (minus one).

Quote:
If you knew anything about the Punjabi culture she came from - you would realize the idea of a bunch of young men harassing and raping and killing a young woman is not really rare. Punishment for that type of crime is rare - especially if done by Hindus on Sikhs where Hindus are the majority and they control the police and justice system.

Young women are also in great danger if they have married "outside their class" or against their parent's wishes.
Did she know she was in Canada? What was the case called? I want to look it up now.

Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
You made an analogy to make a point. Your analogy failed, and thus your point isn't made. If you want to defend the usefulness of your analogy in arguing your point, feel free. If not, it'd probably be useful to just admit that it was a bad analogy and move on.
You keep saying I made an analogy as if I constructed it. As far as I know, I haven't had many brushes with Death from which to draw upon. All analogies have their limitations, and I've been reasonably clear about the main point, which is an irrational over-reaction. You might have something resembling a point if I had said, "This is exactly like the time when..."
__________________
Cain: Don't be a homo.
Diablo: What's that supposed to mean?
Cain: It's a heteronormative remark meant to be taken at face-value.
Diablo: You're a lousy bigot. Apologise and withdraw that remark.
Cain: Nah.
Cain is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:56 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.