Where am I? Where is the car? How old is the “young man”? Who is with me? When and where did I confront him, and what did I say, and when?
If you’re talking about the details of the Rice case, than no, I wouldn’t shoot in the circumstances according to the video that Loehmann did.
And I find those things distasteful. I don’t approve of slavery or racial discrimination. That doesn’t mean I approve of breaking the law to oppose either of them.
You may as well say that the wrong answer can occasionally be right or that up can sometimes be down.
You are stepping out of your car which you have pulled up near where he is standing. You have no way of knowing how old the young man is. Your partner is with him. You are confronting him in a public park adjacent to a school. You told him to show his hands as you exited the car.
You’re willing to accept that if he had actually been packing heat and intended to use it, that this course of action would likely result in your immediate death?
Thus demonstrating that you’re a coward as well as a terrible human being.
Why did I pull up so close?
I don’t believe you.
No it wouldn’t. I can keep my gun trained on him, see what he is actually doing with his hands, keep cover behind my vehicle or the door, etc., all of which would make it much less likely that someone dies needlessly in your irrelevant scenario.
If you possess some sort of supernatural ability to determine a person’s age simply by looking at them, then I apologize for my error.
So you would pull your gun? Under what circumstances would you actually use it? When he pulls a gun from his waistband? When he shoots you?
And I’ve done it again, getting into a stupid engagement with a seriously damaged individual who lies serially and otherwise demonstrates how terrible a person he is. Violating my own advice.
You are still doing exactly what you claimed not to be doing. Stating, without explanation, that the small change isn’t sufficient.
WHY? For fucks sake, WHY DO YOU KEEP SAYING THIS, AND WHY WON’T YOU EXPLAIN IT?
No, it is not hard to understand, not at all. What is hard to understand is why you would expect the numerical values to be similar. WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? And why do you keep refusing to answer?
It’s not my assertion, it’s statistics that no-one (apart from you, apparently) seem to disagree with. Your phrasing proves you’re not asking in good faith, so I won’t bother to answer in detail. But the short answer is there’s a culture with few good male role models, and a lack of respect for law and society.
I’m not claiming it “isn’t sufficient”, just that it may not be. I’ll try to write calmly and slowly – I’m sorry this has been so difficult for you. I’m really trying hard to explain my point of view, and I’m really having trouble (perhaps as much trouble as you) determining why it’s so hard for you to understand when we fundamentally agree that there may be other explanations.
And I don’t “expect the numerical values to be similar”. I understand that in the real world statistical oddities often lead to disproportionate effects. But also in the real world, very often such oddities lead to disproportionate effects which also are affected by other factors beyond the first (and sometimes they don’t). Since these numbers exist in the real world, and since there have been many factors which can (and which have, historically) affect complex societal phenomena like police shootings, then I think there is a possibility that some of these other factors may still play a role.
About the size of the disparity – at the very least, such a massive disparity is a very interesting topic to investigate. It really is a very interesting thing that US police shoot 14,000 times as many people per capita as UK police. That’s a fascinating topic, and I’m fascinated and intrigued by it. Interesting, fascinating stuff. When someone suggests a single cause (e.g. difference in the number of guns), that’s a reasonable suggestion and definitely something to consider as a possibility. But why do you think the conversation stops there? Why does this one cause end the discussion, for you (if it indeed does)? For me, I just say “that’s a very reasonable suggestion – and on the face of it it seems certain to be involved. We should look into it while still considering that there may be other factors of some sort”. So the guns, and gun violence, are very interesting things to discuss. But why are you advocating that the discussion must stop there, and I’m somehow wrong to want to keep talking and learning about it?
Why is it wrong for me to be skeptical (but not dismissive!) when someone (perhaps you) says “difference in guns are the answer and you must accept that as a sufficient answer”.
When we find a disparity and want to look for causes, why would we stop looking after having found just one possible cause? What’s wrong with continuing to look for other possible causes? For complex phenomena, there are very often more than one cause.
[QUOTE=Smapti]
You have no way of knowing how old the young man is.
[/QUOTE]
You don’t even have a way to know why the fuck it matters !!!1!
When I actually *see *a gun would be a start. A split second before said gun is pointed towards somebody (anybody) would be best.
See ? Not all that impossible a standard, is it ? Remember : they’re the pow-leece. They get to draw and point first. Nobody is questioning that. And once you HAVE your gun drawn and it IS pointing at your target, there’s no possibility whatsoever of them outdrawing you, is there ? So. “I’ve been told this person has a gun and their hand is moving” ? Not quite 'nuff.
That’s not what I’ve said, precisely, but it’s fairly close. The difference in the number of guns, the much greater likelihood of encountering an armed (non-police) person in the US, and the likelihood of being shot by the police are all related to the differences in culture between the US and the UK.
You seem to be saying that that cannot be sufficient, that there must be other causes, such as badly trained police, or recruitment of violent racists as cops, or much less maliciously problems with police procedure that could be rectified by adopting UK police practices.
That’s not the whole problem, though. You are trying to say that, if there’s an increased risk of something happening - whether it’s encountering someone with a gun, or being the victim of a violent crime - then the response in terms of fear, and hence feeling the need to act in self defence, should be numerically proportionate to that increase in risk. You’ve repeatedly said that an increase, whether a factor of 3 or a factor of 1000, is not believable - but you won’t explain why it’s not believable. You keep stating it as a fact, that the greater the disparity the greater the likelihood of other causes. Again, why? It’s a simple question, that you keep refusing to answer. Why would you expect them to increase at the same rate?
That’s not what you’ve been saying. You’ve been saying that, if there’s one change of 10x and another of 1000x, it can’t be solely down to that cause because the numbers are different, and no matter how many times I ask, you won’t explain why you think that.
I can’t even argue with you about it, because you won’t explain why you think that. I don’t believe it’s true, it’s not true for most things, especially complex phenomena, and I don’t get why you think social issues would be different.
Somebody just needs to give **Smapti **the answer he’s looking for before his balls explode. Fine, I’ll step up.
Ahem … I would have leapt out the window of my cruiser before it even came to a full stop, shoulder rolling into combat position, drawing a bead on the perp while hollering, “Freeze, you pepper-bellied chili-choker,” and in the micro-second before the criminal even moved, I’d unload seven shots directly into his right eye, shoulder-rolled again and then fired another seven shots into his left eye. Then I’d blow the smoke out of the pipe of my gun and said, “Hasta la vista, baby,” or maybe, “Surf’s up, pal,” … possibly, “I ain’t got time to bleed.”
I haven’t really figured out which cool saying I’d whip out — I hope that doesn’t invalidate Smapti’s argument.
I don’t believe that, and I haven’t been saying that. It’s possible that a chance of 10x can lead to another of 1000x. That’s a possible thing that has probably occurred in this universe.
I’m just saying there’s a possibility that that’s not the only cause, and it’s reasonable to look for other causes too.
Just a simple misunderstanding – I don’t think that. It’s possible the only cause of the disparity is the difference in guns and gun violence. It’s also possible that there are other causes involved.
And it’s reasonable that when you (or someone else) says “guns and gun violence are the cause”, I respond “there may be other possible causes in addition to those” or even “I suspect (without certainty) that there are other factors involved in addition to those two”. And it’s reasonable to find the size itself of the disparity interesting, and worthy of further investigation and discussion.
It’s a thing that happens all the damn time. Small changes have massive effects. Just look at evolutionary biology for the most obvious examples. There is a 2% difference in the DNA between humans and Chimpanzees, but humans have been way more successful than that difference would suggest by your reasoning. If you go by population (which is really the only meaningful way when deciding if something that exists purely to replicate*), you get a 1.02x increase** leading to a 35000x improvement.
There may be good reasons to think that a particular change isn’t sufficient to cause another change, but the disparity in the size of cause and effect isn’t really one of them. You’ve been talking about social issues, the whole idea of a tipping point is that a small change can cause a massive one.
But we’ve not been talking about small changes. We’ve been talking about certain groups being many times more violent than others, or having many times greater access to weapons. A small change in violence level would be 1.06x, or possibly 1.6 times. Not 6 times, that’s a massive amount, and it’s hardly surprising there’s a massive response. If you were buying a new car, you’d think twice before buying one that was 1.06x more likely to fatally malfunction, you wouldn’t buy one that was 1.6x more likely to, and you’d expect the one that’s 6 times more likely to kill you to be recalled and something done to prevent such deathtraps being sold.
Now, we obviously can’t do that to people, but do you have some idea yet why it’s completely unrealistic to expect the response to a change to be numerically proportionate?
*The purpose of DNA, to the extent it’s meaningful to talk about in having one, is to survive and spread.
**That’s with the rather generous assumption that all of that 2% difference is beneficial.
Sure, and I don’t necessarily expect this. Interesting stuff, and I think looking into the potential causes of the US to UK disparity could be worth it. It might turn out that this disparity in a very complex societal issue has a very simple cause, or it could be that there are multiple causes.
The Three Laws of Smapti:
A Smapti may not help a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to be helped. A Smapti must obey orders given him by authority figure no matter what. A Smapti must protect its own existence over that of his own children or any other human.
I am asking you, in good faith, to provide your explanation. I know that in statistical analyses, SES-oriented indicators account for apparent associations between race and violence or criminal behavior. Differential police contact, differential conviction rates and differential sentencing experienced by African Americans are not accounted for by SES.
Despite the empirical evidence, however, you discount this explanatory model. I’m trying to get you to state clearly what your explanation is, but you have been unwilling to be straight.
However, apparently while denying broader American cultural factors, you appear to be endorsing minority cultural factors as a cause. Can you clarify what it is about black culture that you think is causal?