Air Grievances about BruceZ Getting Called Racist ITT: New Posts Arriving All the Time!
04-19-2015
, 08:45 AM
04-19-2015
, 08:45 AM
04-19-2015
, 08:51 AM
04-19-2015
, 09:08 AM
04-19-2015
, 09:21 AM
04-19-2015
, 09:33 AM
04-19-2015
, 09:43 AM
04-19-2015
, 09:48 AM
Well except for one and I believe that person will clearly demonstrate their objection.
04-19-2015
, 09:51 AM
04-19-2015
, 09:53 AM
04-19-2015
, 10:08 AM
04-19-2015
, 10:19 AM
Because my time apparently isn't super valuable and because I don't like the implications that I'm careless or a smear artist or whatever I went back and quoted every brucez post in the SMP ferguson thread up until the point where "the politics fruit loops" got involved. As I have said before here is the thread itself for all your other context needs. Hopefully someone can point out to me which of these missing bits is the important one. There are at least 3 deleted posts in the mix that I don't have access to because I don't mod SMP but if Zeno or whoever wants to post those too for extra context that'd be cool.
Quote:
Try that one again. It has to be beyond a reasonable doubt that he was charging for a guilty verdict.
It wouldn't be based on a numerical likelihood. I would consider the possible scenarios in which he might be charging, and I would classify those scenarios with the binary decision of "reasonable" or "not reasonable". If any of them are reasonable, he gets off.
It wouldn't be based on a numerical likelihood. I would consider the possible scenarios in which he might be charging, and I would classify those scenarios with the binary decision of "reasonable" or "not reasonable". If any of them are reasonable, he gets off.
Quote:
I mentioned this before. I once served on a jury where someone was on trial for being a felon and possessing a handgun. The only reasonable doubt was whether the police just planted the evidence. There was no particular reason to think this happened or didn't happen. So suppose I knew that statistically the rate of police planting evidence in such crimes was 1 in N. What would N have to be for this to become reasonable doubt?
Quote:
It simply isn't defined in terms of probability. What good would it have done me to know, for example, that 0.5% of the time, evidence in such cases is planted? Nobody told me what side of reasonable/unreasonable 0.5% falls on. And this is the simplest of all possible cases. In reality, I have no idea within orders of magnitude what that probability is. It would be reasonable to think it could be over 1%, or 0.1%, or 0.01%. So now I'm supposed to guess at a probability and then make a decision based on my guess when I wouldn't even know what to do if I knew the probability exactly?
We looked at what the cop said he did and what he found. We acknowledged the possibility that evidence could have been planted. But that mere possibility simply wasn't enough to change our belief that the guy was guilty. Not even close. Did we make the right decision? I never had any serious doubt that we did. But I'll say this. If that guy had been on trial for his life instead of for 18 months in Joliet, there's no way in hell he ever would have been convicted based on the scant evidence that was presented.
We looked at what the cop said he did and what he found. We acknowledged the possibility that evidence could have been planted. But that mere possibility simply wasn't enough to change our belief that the guy was guilty. Not even close. Did we make the right decision? I never had any serious doubt that we did. But I'll say this. If that guy had been on trial for his life instead of for 18 months in Joliet, there's no way in hell he ever would have been convicted based on the scant evidence that was presented.
Quote:
The independent autopsy conducted by Michael Baden (famous pathologist) showed that bullets entered through the front of the body, and the fatal shot entered through the top of the head. He said that this could be consistent with either charging forward or surrendering. I don't know where you heard about back to front, but that would be perfectly consistent with shooting someone who is charging forward with their head down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...imes.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us...imes.html?_r=0
Quote:
And what percentage of the time does an officer making a routine arrest on a violent suspect shoot him down in cold blood while he's surrendering because he's mad at him? Much less than 1/100. It virtually never happens. So by Bayes' theorem, not only wouldn't he be guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, he'd actually be innocent beyond a reasonable doubt.
Quote:
You're missing the point. You can't just look at how unlikely it is that he charged the officer. You have to compare that to the probability that an officer would shoot someone under this circumstance. It doesn't matter if the chances of him charging are 1 in a thousand, if the chances of an officer with a clean record murdering him were in in a million, then it's a thousand to 1 against it.
There were only something like 425 police shootings last year total out of 12 million arrests. On top of that we have a 6 year veteran with a clean record on the one hand, and on the other, some guy that just committed a strong arm robbery with assault and battery.
The wiki article about the shooting has all the witness reports, police statements, autopsy findings, investigations, etc, all in one place.
There were only something like 425 police shootings last year total out of 12 million arrests. On top of that we have a 6 year veteran with a clean record on the one hand, and on the other, some guy that just committed a strong arm robbery with assault and battery.
The wiki article about the shooting has all the witness reports, police statements, autopsy findings, investigations, etc, all in one place.
Quote:
But if the Bayesian cost function says there's little to be lost by convicting you in error, then we don't need a high probability.
If we're going to apply probability theory, we should assume that some lives are more valuable than others. Of course the liberals will whine about how that violates their "equal protection under the law" bullcrap.
If we're going to apply probability theory, we should assume that some lives are more valuable than others. Of course the liberals will whine about how that violates their "equal protection under the law" bullcrap.
Quote:
They're rioting because race hustlers have whipped them up into a frenzy and made them believe that white cops are out to kill black people. They do this every time just so they can stay relevant. Never mind that 91% of blacks that are killed are killed by other blacks. Why don't talk about that? Why don't they riot in the streets about that? Isn't that a much bigger problem?
Quote:
We're talking about being shot, not general treatment. Cops treat people differently when they are suspected of being troublemakers. If they suspect blacks of being troublemakers more than whites, that doesn't imply that they suspect them of being troublemakers simply because they're black.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised. This is a perfectly normal occurrence that we should expect from time to time.
I don't know why anyone should be surprised. This is a perfectly normal occurrence that we should expect from time to time.
Quote:
If a cop uses race as one of his criteria for identifying potential troublemakers, is that racism? Much of the time it's just good police work and proper application of statistics. If they didn't do it, there's would probably be a hell of a lot more blacks shot by other blacks than are killed by the supposedly "racist" cops.
Quote:
I'm not avoiding anything. I'm trying to clarify what you mean by racism.
I think cops make decisions based on certain characteristics, and those characteristics are often correlated with race. Race may sometimes be one of the influencing characteristics among other characteristics, and it's impossible to determine whether the same decision would have been made if only the race had been different. Race was part of the whole package and can't be removed. Even the cop probably couldn't tell you whether race played a decisive role.
I think cops make decisions based on certain characteristics, and those characteristics are often correlated with race. Race may sometimes be one of the influencing characteristics among other characteristics, and it's impossible to determine whether the same decision would have been made if only the race had been different. Race was part of the whole package and can't be removed. Even the cop probably couldn't tell you whether race played a decisive role.
Quote:
If Brown already tried to get Wilson's his gun once, and then he starts charging back at Wilson weighing 350 pounds even after being shot 5 times, that's a lethal threat that he will go for Wilson's gun again. I don't know what else you else you expect Wilson to do besides kill him when he gets close enough.
Quote:
After struggling with a guy that tried to get his gun, I don't think running away from Brown is a legitimate option for a police officer. Keep the car between them and let Brown chase him around it? No, I don't think so. Also, it isn't true that Brown was no longer a threat because he was shot and injured. You get a burst of adrenaline in a situation like that. You don't feel pain, and you get very aggressive. He was like a big angry wounded animal charging after him, and that's very dangerous for the officer.
Quote:
What typically happens in situatons like this one and the Trayvon Martin case is that you have a couple of hotheads with attitudes that clash from the beginning, and then things escalate quickly from there. Wilson yelled something like, "Get your ass out of the street". We know Brown was an aggressive guy. Just look at how he shoved the clerk in the convenience store. Wilson may have then proceeded to make some tactical errors and even violations of proper procedure. That doesn't make him a murderer though because once all those errors were made, killing may have become a valid option. The problem is that all gets mixed in people's minds, and you end up with, "He murdered him because he's a racist". There's no reason to believe race had anything to do with it.
Quote:
Now you have to define "justly".
It's part of a larger pattern endemic to their culture. It's stems from a strong undercurrent intent on giving the big finger to established societal structure.
Probably not because it's not part of what he perceives to be a problematic pattern.
A lot of problems started in my neighborhood when a bunch of Mexicans moved in. Mostly this has to do with noise. Mexicans appear to be culturally predisposed to making a lot more of it than whites. Whites don't typically have parties in their cars where they drink beer and blast circus music. Whites don't have very large numbers of people and several generations living in a single house, with lots of other friends staying over temporarily. Whites don't typically work on their cars, do construction, and move heavy furniture around constantly. The Mexicans are a very industrious people who are always working to make their lives better. That makes a lot of noise. So if I hear some noise and look out the window to see some Mexicans congregating, I will get upset and do something about it much quicker than if I see some white guys. The white guys aren't part of the pattern of trouble. It doesn't make sense to immediately get upset at them because they aren't likely to ever make that noise again. They may just be passing through. It doesn't matter if I've never seen those particular Mexicans before. They are still part of a wider problem. They are generally associated with other Mexicans that have made noise in the past. If I complain to them, maybe that general population of Mexicans will start to get the idea that this won't be tolerated. When Pablo starts to make noise, maybe Chico will let him know to be careful because the crazy white guy doesn't like it.
If I have a cockroach problem, I will get upset as soon as I see any cockroach. It doesn't matter if I haven't seen that particular roach before. If a big fly comes through, that's just as unsanitary, but I won't get worked up about that because I don't have a fly problem.
Assuming he is likely a bigot is a form of bigotry in itself.
Suppose the black guys walking in the street had been dressed in tuxedos. The cop probably wouldn't have gotten upset the same way. So it isn't about race. It's about people walking in the street who are part of a larger pattern of people walking in the street, and then mouthing off, attacking an officer, and trying to steal his gun.
It's part of a larger pattern endemic to their culture. It's stems from a strong undercurrent intent on giving the big finger to established societal structure.
Probably not because it's not part of what he perceives to be a problematic pattern.
A lot of problems started in my neighborhood when a bunch of Mexicans moved in. Mostly this has to do with noise. Mexicans appear to be culturally predisposed to making a lot more of it than whites. Whites don't typically have parties in their cars where they drink beer and blast circus music. Whites don't have very large numbers of people and several generations living in a single house, with lots of other friends staying over temporarily. Whites don't typically work on their cars, do construction, and move heavy furniture around constantly. The Mexicans are a very industrious people who are always working to make their lives better. That makes a lot of noise. So if I hear some noise and look out the window to see some Mexicans congregating, I will get upset and do something about it much quicker than if I see some white guys. The white guys aren't part of the pattern of trouble. It doesn't make sense to immediately get upset at them because they aren't likely to ever make that noise again. They may just be passing through. It doesn't matter if I've never seen those particular Mexicans before. They are still part of a wider problem. They are generally associated with other Mexicans that have made noise in the past. If I complain to them, maybe that general population of Mexicans will start to get the idea that this won't be tolerated. When Pablo starts to make noise, maybe Chico will let him know to be careful because the crazy white guy doesn't like it.
If I have a cockroach problem, I will get upset as soon as I see any cockroach. It doesn't matter if I haven't seen that particular roach before. If a big fly comes through, that's just as unsanitary, but I won't get worked up about that because I don't have a fly problem.
Assuming he is likely a bigot is a form of bigotry in itself.
Suppose the black guys walking in the street had been dressed in tuxedos. The cop probably wouldn't have gotten upset the same way. So it isn't about race. It's about people walking in the street who are part of a larger pattern of people walking in the street, and then mouthing off, attacking an officer, and trying to steal his gun.
Quote:
Why isn't thinking that string theory is worth pursuing not part of the same great neural network computation that produced the TOE according to Bozo the clown?
No, you don't understand. Wilson is part of a contingent of cops who are out to kill black people. That was his only criteria for killing Brown. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown was a scumbag. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a clerk. It had nothing to do with his appearance and body language. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown defied authority. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown physically assaulted Wilson and went for his gun. Wilson just wanted to kill a black person. It was only about race. That is the hypothesis being floated. If some Temptations impersonators had been there, and they obeyed Wilson and got out of the street when told, it would have made no difference. Wilson would have blown them away. That must be true if the hypothesis is true. The fact that he might not have killed a white person with the same behavior as Brown doesn't correctly test that hypothesis. That could happen if Wilson's decision was due to some function of all the factors of which race was only one which interacted with these other factors in some complicated way via the hidden nodes of the network. But we certainly don't want to admit such a possibility. That would tend to put much of the blame on Brown and suggest that decisions by police are far more complicated than our thesis that cops are out to kill black people. We can't have that.
No, you don't understand. Wilson is part of a contingent of cops who are out to kill black people. That was his only criteria for killing Brown. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown was a scumbag. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown just robbed a convenience store and assaulted a clerk. It had nothing to do with his appearance and body language. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown defied authority. It had nothing to do with the fact that Brown physically assaulted Wilson and went for his gun. Wilson just wanted to kill a black person. It was only about race. That is the hypothesis being floated. If some Temptations impersonators had been there, and they obeyed Wilson and got out of the street when told, it would have made no difference. Wilson would have blown them away. That must be true if the hypothesis is true. The fact that he might not have killed a white person with the same behavior as Brown doesn't correctly test that hypothesis. That could happen if Wilson's decision was due to some function of all the factors of which race was only one which interacted with these other factors in some complicated way via the hidden nodes of the network. But we certainly don't want to admit such a possibility. That would tend to put much of the blame on Brown and suggest that decisions by police are far more complicated than our thesis that cops are out to kill black people. We can't have that.
Quote:
"The police departments of America are endowed by the state with dominion over your body."
Uh, no they aren't. If they had dominion over your body, they could just walk up and shoot you dead any time they please for no reason. If they do that, they go to prison for murder. If they are suspected of that, they have to answer to a jury of citizens.
You might find this interesting and informative:
http://humanevents.com/2013/07/19/bl...-white-racism/
Uh, no they aren't. If they had dominion over your body, they could just walk up and shoot you dead any time they please for no reason. If they do that, they go to prison for murder. If they are suspected of that, they have to answer to a jury of citizens.
You might find this interesting and informative:
http://humanevents.com/2013/07/19/bl...-white-racism/
Quote:
I think we ought to privatize the police. Then if the blacks in the inner city don't like the way the government police operate, they are perfectly free to dismiss those guys from protecting them, and hire their own force armed with ASP batons. Let's see how that works out for them.
Maybe something like this:
"In 2010, following the serious injury of an unarmed officer in a knife attack, the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, Michael Winner stated that he had put up memorials to 44 officers and that he believed, "It is almost certain that at least 38 of those [Police Officers] would be alive had they been armed".[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...#Great_Britain
"In October 2000, Nottinghamshire Police introduced regular armed patrols to the St Ann's and Meadows estates in Nottingham, in response to fourteen drug-related shootings in the two areas in the previous year.[9] Although the measure was not intended to be permanent, patrols were stepped up in the autumn of 2001 after further shootings,[10] after which the firearms crime declined dramatically.[11]"
Maybe something like this:
"In 2010, following the serious injury of an unarmed officer in a knife attack, the chairman of the Police Memorial Trust, Michael Winner stated that he had put up memorials to 44 officers and that he believed, "It is almost certain that at least 38 of those [Police Officers] would be alive had they been armed".[13]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_...#Great_Britain
"In October 2000, Nottinghamshire Police introduced regular armed patrols to the St Ann's and Meadows estates in Nottingham, in response to fourteen drug-related shootings in the two areas in the previous year.[9] Although the measure was not intended to be permanent, patrols were stepped up in the autumn of 2001 after further shootings,[10] after which the firearms crime declined dramatically.[11]"
Quote:
Yeah, let's take away the guns from both the police and the people so only the criminals can get them. Capital idea.
Aside from the fact that I said nothing of the sort, I find it amusing that you seem to think there's something unusual or noteworthy about different people applying statistics correctly and coming to different conclusions.
Aside from the fact that I said nothing of the sort, I find it amusing that you seem to think there's something unusual or noteworthy about different people applying statistics correctly and coming to different conclusions.
Quote:
Of course. That's because it's a completely different situation when the guns are already out there.
Here's some interesting reading for you.
Here's some interesting reading for you.
Quote:
You don't need a degree in statistics to understand why if 96% of violent crimes in NYC are committed by blacks and hispanics, that you should stop-and-frisk more blacks and hispanics than anyone else. However, I'm not good enough in statistics to be able to conclude that it's likely that some cop that I don't know shot someone because he's a racist. It's not enough just to show that being a racist changed the way he approached the black people walking in the street, or how quickly he resorted to physical force. We have to show that in the few seconds that he was trying to fight for his life he thought "he's black, so I'll shoot him". As if it's possible to ever figure out what he would have done had the suspect been white.
If you can't see the difference between these things, then you're being intentionally obtuse. Hey, I think I'll start a blog called Intentionally Obtuse. There I can rant and rave and use hyperbole about how race-baiters hold their own people down by turning every event into an excuse for why its pointless to try to get ahead in this white cracker world instead of addressing the actual endemic problems that face their culture.
If you haven't been watching the media coverage enough to know that this is what is being said by the race baiters, then you can at least read this thread. Here we learn that it's the experience of many black people that the police can just walk up and shoot them for no reason. It's basically open hunting season on blacks. If that accounted for every single one of the 225 or so blacks killed by cops in the US last year, that would be about as many people as were killed by dogs over the last decade.
I was sarcastically saying that the other side doesn't want to make it more complicated than that. Because then they would have to admit that there were other factors in play, that cop's decisions are complicated, and that Brown brought this on himself. What I said wasn't an argument at all. It was a trivial observation. There were many other things that could have been different that would have changed the result. Things that were well within Brown's control. That's what I meant by "it's not about race". That the thought process that went into these decision didn't primarily focus on race to the exclusion of considering other factors. They want to argue that if Brown had been white with all other factors being equal, then he wouldn't have been shot. So I counter with the argument that if Brown hadn't been a scumbag, then he also wouldn't have been shot. Let's talk about that. But I can see why they don't want to.
If you can't see the difference between these things, then you're being intentionally obtuse. Hey, I think I'll start a blog called Intentionally Obtuse. There I can rant and rave and use hyperbole about how race-baiters hold their own people down by turning every event into an excuse for why its pointless to try to get ahead in this white cracker world instead of addressing the actual endemic problems that face their culture.
If you haven't been watching the media coverage enough to know that this is what is being said by the race baiters, then you can at least read this thread. Here we learn that it's the experience of many black people that the police can just walk up and shoot them for no reason. It's basically open hunting season on blacks. If that accounted for every single one of the 225 or so blacks killed by cops in the US last year, that would be about as many people as were killed by dogs over the last decade.
I was sarcastically saying that the other side doesn't want to make it more complicated than that. Because then they would have to admit that there were other factors in play, that cop's decisions are complicated, and that Brown brought this on himself. What I said wasn't an argument at all. It was a trivial observation. There were many other things that could have been different that would have changed the result. Things that were well within Brown's control. That's what I meant by "it's not about race". That the thought process that went into these decision didn't primarily focus on race to the exclusion of considering other factors. They want to argue that if Brown had been white with all other factors being equal, then he wouldn't have been shot. So I counter with the argument that if Brown hadn't been a scumbag, then he also wouldn't have been shot. Let's talk about that. But I can see why they don't want to.
Quote:
We wouldn't be talking about it at all if it weren't for the people saying that and things remotely similar to that.
Why? BTW, he probably would have been shot if the FBI guy hadn't shot the guy that was about to shoot him. He had tried to convince the FBI guy to put his gun away, that he didn't need it.
Based on this and previous comments you made, I believe that you are bigoted against the red indians.
Why? BTW, he probably would have been shot if the FBI guy hadn't shot the guy that was about to shoot him. He had tried to convince the FBI guy to put his gun away, that he didn't need it.
Based on this and previous comments you made, I believe that you are bigoted against the red indians.
Quote:
Bull****. I have stated facts, statistics, offered interpretations of events, applied logic, and given relevant links. You asked me a question that was so dumb it could have been asked by the race-baiters. I answered you. Now you have 3 choices as I see it. You can choose to argue logically why I'm wrong. You can thank me for answering and admit that the implication of your question was misguided. Or you can accuse me of destroying the thread with ranting hypberole, and then turn tail and run like a little bitch.
Quote:
Quote:
Because they come from an area where racial tensions are very high, and where the blacks tend to view everything through a filter of race, so much so that one of them looked right at someone being shot in the front as he was either standing still or coming forward, and she saw someone being shot in the back while he was running away, or else she outright lied.
04-19-2015
, 10:23 AM
04-19-2015
, 10:35 AM
04-19-2015
, 10:36 AM