Jump to content

How's This For Polite


Recommended Posts

You'll probably have enough trouble decoding that horribly articulated paragraph.
Naw, it was relatively clear and was basically one point.Your point is, according to the story, you find it more likely, more probable, more reasonable, better to drive away.My point is you cannot quantify or reasonably justify any such opinion unless you are adding details to the story that are not there. The story doesn't say anything about the tone, demeanor, movements, time scale... fucking nothing dude, outside of his first description during the first incident. He said he "quietly" said something to the guy. Then the story goes strangely silent on everything that happened in between that first meeting to the shooting. It says nothing about whether or not he went in the store after the guy did, or waited outside. Or went in and waited right at the door. Or whether he was staring at the guy, or talking to him, or berating him... anything. It doesn't even say the guy can be assumed to have heard his "quiet" shit at the beginning. It says absolutely nothing about what "followed him out" means. Out of the store? Out to his car? It says "asked" something. He didn't add "quietly" this time. Does that mean in a normal voice? In a loud voice? Was he pounding his fucking chest?How quickly was he "following him out"? Was he increasing his speed? Did he stop at some point? Was he at 30 feet and then explode to 15 feet?The dude is incredibly vague. The only way to take his story as anywhere near an accurate recounting is to assume a wormhole opened up from time to time and skipped time forward and they ceased to exist for the time between each sparsely described event. No interaction, no movement, just sort of blinking from one place to the next in a vacuum. All of your "probabilities" and "likelihoods" and could'a would's are based utterly on how you're literally guessing the event happened.I've avoided probabilities and likely-hood's concerning the man's recounting in terms of indications of dishonesty, and what those indications might reflect, because I haven't wanted to bring the discussion outside of what one can extrapolate from common experience. Having done 100's of interrogations, and thousands of interviews/debriefings, the way the guy told the story raises all kinds of interesting alarms. But all of that is unnecessary to realize the story is too sparse to draw conclusions as to the nature of the shoot. You're right, my particular possibilities aren't doing "shit". That's the fucking point. Mine are showing how yours don't justify your claims about probabilities and likely-hoods. You keep saying that shit as if it's so. You keep saying that he probably could have done that, or it was a better chance that this would have been optimal over that...Where the hell are you getting the information to draw those conclusions? Are you reading a different story where the victim has filled in a shit-ton of holes in the story, providing details I'm not privy to?If so, just show me, and the discussion will be over.Otherwise, Ok. I get it. You have a "feeling" that it was more optimal to get in the car and drive away. I'll file that away in my journal right under Digmonks "belief" that the shooter was a psychopath who seems better suited for the military than for functioning in society.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Mr. Manners was going into the store as Shooter was coming out. Mr. Manners held the door open for Shooter. Shooter didn't say thank you and Mr. Manners called him on it. Shooter walked to his car and Mr. Manners walked toward the vehicle. When Mr. Manners was about 15 feet away, Shooter shot him. It's all right there between the lines. Oh, and lasers...frickin' lasers comin' out of his eyes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr. Manners was going into the store as Shooter was coming out. Mr. Manners held the door open for Shooter. Shooter didn't say thank you and Mr. Manners called him on it. Shooter walked to his car and Mr. Manners walked toward the vehicle. When Mr. Manners was about 15 feet away, Shooter shot him. It's all right there between the lines. Oh, and lasers...frickin' lasers comin' out of his eyes.
No.“I opened up the door for a gentleman. He walked in, and I quietly said, ‘Why don’t you say thank you for holding the door open?’” He opened the door and the gentlemen walked in. Hence a major problem in the guy's story. He skips the entire part of what happened while the guy was in the store. The whole thing is a horrible account, almost nonsensical. How anyone is drawing these "probabilities" from that shit is beyond me. Jesus, try to at least get the sparse information right.
Link to post
Share on other sites
All of your "probabilities" and "likelihoods" and could'a would's are based utterly on how you're literally guessing the event happened.You're right, my particular possibilities aren't doing "shit". That's the ****ing point. Mine are showing how yours don't justify your claims about probabilities and likely-hoods. You keep saying that shit as if it's so. You keep saying that he probably could have done that, or it was a better chance that this would have been optimal over that...Where the hell are you getting the information to draw those conclusions? Are you reading a different story where the victim has filled in a shit-ton of holes in the story, providing details I'm not privy to?If so, just show me, and the discussion will be over.
You're treating my "probabilities" and "likelihoods" as if I'm stating them as fact. I'm not, and perhaps I'm not being clear. I guess I just assumed from the beginning that it's very obvious to everyone that we can't know for sure what happened, and if everyone can agree we don't know what happened, it's perfectly reasonable to discuss what alternatives could have been pursued based on different storylines. It's like the worst "choose your own adventure" kids' book ever. This is an intellectual exercise (well, relatively speaking), not a courtroom where it really matters exactly how it went down. When I say "there's a good chance he could have just gotten in the car and left" it's kind of ridiculous for you to jump in with "but there's a chance he couldn't have". I know there's a chance he couldn't have.
Otherwise, Ok. I get it. You have a "feeling" that it was more optimal to get in the car and drive away.
There are a number of ways this could have gone down. In my opinion, there are more ways it could have gone down in which driving away would have been more optimal than shooting someone without warning. You really disagree with that?But sure, it's impossible to say beyond a shadow of a doubt what was more optimal without getting multiple witness statements, interrogating both the shooter and shootee, and possibly finding video footage.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, there are more ways it could have gone down in which driving away would have been more optimal than shooting someone without warning. You really disagree with that?
Yes, because it's misleading. The guy was dangerously close to another man in a way I cannot extrapolate from the story - and is, in one of the only things we can extrapolate, the aggressor. I suppose we can come up with possibilities and maybe you can come up with more scenarios where it would be better to drive away. And if we're talking about it in that way, sure, maybe. My only point is there is no way to call the shooting "probably unjustified". Could it have been unjustified? Sure. Would the world be a better place if people didn't ever need to justifiably defend themselves or decided to unjustifiably shoot people? Yes.We can come to all sort of agreements concerning specific possibilities. And probably even disagree on certain things when a possibility is jointly assumed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And probably even disagree on certain things when a possibility is jointly assumed.
This discussion is pretty much at an impasse I'd say, and I'm satisfied with what I deem to be relatively minor differences in the arguments.So let's go with an old morality/ethics question. If this particular thought experiment has been done somewhere here before, I don't give a fuck. Scenario 1:You're standing next to a fork in the train tracks, with access to the lever that changes the direction the train will take. The train can not be stopped, and if left as it is, it will run over and kill 5 similarly aged people standing at the end of the tracks. If, however , you pull the lever the train will change directions, killing the 1 similarly aged person standing at the end of that fork. What do you do?Scenario 2:The situation with the train is the same, however this time you're standing on a bridge over the tracks. There's only one direction the train can go, and at the end there are 5 people that will be killed. You know that the only way to stop the train is by throwing a 400lb+ object in it's path. The only 400lb+ object at your disposal at the moment happens to be the very fat man standing next to you. What do you do?Go.
Link to post
Share on other sites
My only point is there is no way to call the shooting "probably unjustified".
And your point is just wrong.Somebody who is unarmed and 15 feet away is shot. Anytime somebody who is unarmed and hasn't physically attacked anybody is shot the presumption has to be that it was probably unjustified until shown otherwise. Yes there are scenarios where the shooting might possibly be justified but jumping to deadly force as the first option against an unarmed person in the vast majority of situations is going to be unjustified.Your point should be that it's possible that the shooting was justified.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And your point is just wrong.Somebody who is unarmed and 15 feet away is shot. Anytime somebody who is unarmed and hasn't physically attacked anybody is shot the presumption has to be that it was probably unjustified until shown otherwise. Yes there are scenarios where the shooting might possibly be justified but jumping to deadly force as the first option against an unarmed person in the vast majority of situations is going to be unjustified.Your point should be that it's possible that the shooting was justified.
This is Georgia.Again, Georgia has a version of Castle Doctrine Law that falls into the "Stand Your Ground" Category. Georgia law explicitly states that an individual has no duty to retreat before using Deadly Force in defense of themselves or their property.
"16-3-23.1.A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, relating to the use of force in defense of self or others, Code Section 16-3-23, relating to the use of force in defense of a habitation, or Code Section 16-3-24, relating to the use of force in defense of property other than a habitation, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use force as provided in said Code sections, including deadly force."
What is more, Georgia also includes a "Shield Law" that shields an individual from Civil or Criminal prosecution when they protect themselves - unless they are not legally carrying the weapon
"16-3-24.2.A person who uses threats or force in accordance with Code Section 16-3-21, 16-3-23, 16-3-23.1, or 16-3-24 shall be immune from criminal prosecution therefor unless in the use of deadly force, such person utilizes a weapon the carrying or possession of which is unlawful by such person under Part 2 or 3 of Article 4 of Chapter 11 of this title."
So it comes down to: Was the shooting justified?In Michigan, an individual needs to use force proportional to the threat.In Michigan a pro-gun organization even concludes:
Essentially, deadly force is only authorized in self-defense when preventing: great bodily harm that could lead death, death, or rape (known modernly in Miichigan as sexual assault.) The individual using deadly force in legitimate self defense must have an actual belief that he is preventing one of those three things, and that belief has to be reasonable under all the circumstances. In other words, a jury would have to agree that, if they were in the same situation, they would share that same belief that great bodily harm, death, or sexual assault were about to occur......This statute gives the benefit of the doubt to the home or business owner or motorist. However, it is not a blanket license to kill. Remember that a firearm is always considered deadly force and use your guns wisely, judiciously and effectively. The presumption raised by this statutes is rebuttable. Meaning, that a bloodthirsty or negligent individual who shoots at someone who is found to have been clearly not a threat, may still run afoul of the law.
When I took my State (Michigan) required training to Carry a Concealed Pistol, it was stressed multiple times that someone within 15 feet posed an immediate physical threat. If a person was within that range they can close fast enough to strike you and perhaps disarm you before you have a chance to use your weapon. This doesn't presume that the individual has any training or weapons. So the training authorized by the State of Michigan suggests that 15 feet is well within the range to use your weapon.So by following the Psycho to his car (and yes, following the guy to within 15 feet is "following him to his car"), douche has escalated from simple douchiness to posing a physical threat.So it all comes down to did the Psycho feel Physically Threatened? Given the facts of this as we know them, it will be difficult, but not impossible for the Psycho to contend that he felt immediate physical danger from the Douche.Also, in real life a gun isn't a magical tool. People seem to think you should fire a warning shot, aim for a non-lethal part of the body, or brandish it to stop your attacker. This is foolish and in most cases will fail and you will find yourself in a hand to hand situation with an attacker instead of defending yourself with your weapon. The vast majority of shots fired by police as well as military miss their intended targets. An attacker can continue to pose a physical threat even after being lethally shot. So, failure to retreat does not make this an unjustified shooting. Nor does the fact that the aggressor in this case was unarmed.I'd say that leaving the scene and failure to report the incident is more of an indication of guilt of some sort - perhaps unlicensed carry.
Link to post
Share on other sites
And your point is just wrong.Somebody who is unarmed and 15 feet away is shot. Anytime somebody who is unarmed and hasn't physically attacked anybody is shot the presumption has to be that it was probably unjustified until shown otherwise. Yes there are scenarios where the shooting might possibly be justified but jumping to deadly force as the first option against an unarmed person in the vast majority of situations is going to be unjustified.Your point should be that it's possible that the shooting was justified.
It sure would be if your "unarmed" and more important "a man the shooter believed was unarmed" additions to the story were necessarily the case or even necessarily likely. However, since they aren't, since you are flatly assuming the can-be-extrapolated aggressor both was unarmed and was obviously unarmed, you're argument that I'm wrong about unknown variables is specious. You can't make that judgement, or even that it was "unlikely" given the absolute vacuum of detail provided only by the aggressor. But, I've recorded your assumptions concerning unknown data down in my journal.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is Georgia.
All of this is detail I probably should have added to my argument prior. Was too focused on the minutia.Although I should add it contextually comes off a little too far on the "justified" side. The missing details in the story could still swing it either way, obviously.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Without thinking, first impulse:1 - throw the lever2 - don't throw the fat manI'm sure the point is that both are effectively the same thing and yet I'm choosing differently.
Pretty much, yeah.
I'd probably throw the switch and the fat man.Theoretically at least. I know I'd throw the switch for sure.Why would you chose to act in option 1 but not 2? Not a challenge, just wondering about the thought process.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would you chose to act in option 1 but not 2? Not a challenge, just wondering about the thought process.
This is what each scenario looks like in my mind:Scenario 1 - I'm standing there at the lever and I have to make a choice where either 5 people die or 1 person dies. Yes, pulling the lever is an action taken, but the whole point of me being at the lever is to make, or choose not to make, this action. It's simply the lesser of two evils.Scenario 2 - Me and the fat guy are merely innocent bystanders about to witness a horrible accident. The difference feels like "who do you choose to die?" versus "would you kill one person to save five?" even if they are ultimately the same choice.But the correct answer to both is to get Denzel Washington to the scene.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No.“I opened up the door for a gentleman. He walked in, and I quietly said, ‘Why don’t you say thank you for holding the door open?’” He opened the door and the gentlemen walked in. Hence a major problem in the guy's story. He skips the entire part of what happened while the guy was in the store. The whole thing is a horrible account, almost nonsensical. How anyone is drawing these "probabilities" from that shit is beyond me. Jesus, try to at least get the sparse information right.
Yes, how anyone is drawing these probabilities is craaaaaazeeee, but your claims that the shooting could have been justifiable because Mr Manners could have esclated the situation into a full-fledged cyborgian attack on Shooter is nowhere near probable, imo.
Yes, because it's misleading. The guy was dangerously close to another man in a way I cannot extrapolate from the story - and is, in one of the only things we can extrapolate, the aggressor. I suppose we can come up with possibilities and maybe you can come up with more scenarios where it would be better to drive away. And if we're talking about it in that way, sure, maybe. My only point is there is no way to call the shooting "probably unjustified". Could it have been unjustified? Sure. Would the world be a better place if people didn't ever need to justifiably defend themselves or decided to unjustifiably shoot people? Yes.We can come to all sort of agreements concerning specific possibilities. And probably even disagree on certain things when a possibility is jointly assumed.
Misleading like your claims that Mr. manners followed Shooter to his car?And even if Mr. Manners was the aggressor it still doesn't condone the use of deadly force.
Link to post
Share on other sites
So it all comes down to did the Psycho feel Physically Threatened?
This is where you lose me a bit. It comes down to whether or not the psycho could reasonably feel physically threatened.
I'd probably throw the switch and the fat man.Theoretically at least. I know I'd throw the switch for sure.Why would you chose to act in option 1 but not 2? Not a challenge, just wondering about the thought process.
I say it with the knowledge that it's hypocritical and probably just based on the fact that I couldn't find it in myself to actively throw someone in front of a train (even though I should), as opposed to just throwing a switch. The throwing of the guy just *feels* more like active murder to save others as opposed to the decision of who dies. Again, it might not be rational.Either way, it's a hypothetical that's applicable to real life. Is it justifiable to induce hypothermia in 50 people in order to find a definitive protocol for treatment? You might kill, say, 20 of those people, but save thousands in the future.
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is what each scenario looks like in my mind:Scenario 1 - I'm standing there at the lever and I have to make a choice where either 5 people die or 1 person dies. Yes, pulling the lever is an action taken, but the whole point of me being at the lever is to make, or choose not to make, this action. It's simply the lesser of two evils.Scenario 2 - Me and the fat guy are merely innocent bystanders about to witness a horrible accident. The difference feels like "who do you choose to die?" versus "would you kill one person to save five?" even if they are ultimately the same choice.But the correct answer to both is to get Denzel Washington to the scene.
Better nate than lever.Option one almost feels like a bunch of Schrodinger's cats.
Link to post
Share on other sites

He's 15 feet away with his family in the car and they had just come from a Tim McGraw concert. He's asking the guy why he didn't say thank you."A person is justified in using threats or force to the degree they reasonably believe it is necessary to stop another person's imminent use of unlawful force."It is possible the shooting was justified. It is not probable. Do you see the difference?

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is where you lose me a bit. It comes down to whether or not the psycho could reasonably feel physically threatened.I say it with the knowledge that it's hypocritical and probably just based on the fact that I couldn't find it in myself to actively throw someone in front of a train (even though I should), as opposed to just throwing a switch. The throwing of the guy just *feels* more like active murder to save others as opposed to the decision of who dies. Again, it might not be rational.
It might also be partially the implied knowledge of the person being sacrificed. Just looking at the scenario it plays like the person who dies as a result of the switch wouldn't know you are killing them. Putting your hands on the fat man, that moment when you're tossing him over, his eyes and reaction and fear... all compounded with him knowing it is you, as one imagines it maybe even looking at you wide-eyed, pleading and wondering why you're killing him, may be a strong psychological deterrent.
Either way, it's a hypothetical that's applicable to real life. Is it justifiable to induce hypothermia in 50 people in order to find a definitive protocol for treatment? You might kill, say, 20 of those people, but save thousands in the future.
I have issue with the "you might". Can you clarify whether you mean "let's say you kill 20 people and save thousands" or "you might kill 20 and you might save thousands"? I think those are vastly different scenarios.
Link to post
Share on other sites
but your claims that the shooting could have been justifiable because Mr Manners could have esclated the situation into a full-fledged cyborgian attack on Shooter is nowhere near probable, imo.
Your straw man is ignored.
Misleading like your claims that Mr. manners followed Shooter to his car?
Your second straw man is ignored.
And even if Mr. Manners was the aggressor it still doesn't condone the use of deadly force.
Your third straw man is ignored. Add a "necessarily" in there and it wouldn't be a straw man and I'd say, "no shit." You're pretty much out of the conversation, I'll wait for FCB Bob to offer further argument. He demonstrates the ability to be relevant and can make an honest effort to be compelling. You are just getting in the way of the interesting thought experiments.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Your straw man is ignored.Your second straw man is ignored.Your third straw man is ignored. Add a "necessarily" in there and it wouldn't be a straw man and I'd say, "no shit." You're pretty much out of the conversation, I'll wait for FCB Bob to offer further argument. He demonstrates the ability to be relevant and can make an honest effort to be compelling. You are just getting in the way of the interesting thought experiments.
You're just bitter because you're wrong. Typical woman.
Link to post
Share on other sites
It might also be partially the implied knowledge of the person being sacrificed. Just looking at the scenario it plays like the person who dies as a result of the switch wouldn't know you are killing them. Putting your hands on the fat man, that moment when you're tossing him over, his eyes and reaction and fear... all compounded with him knowing it is you, as one imagines it maybe even looking at you wide-eyed, pleading and wondering why you're killing him, may be a strong psychological deterrent.
Yeah. I don't have a problem with people hunting as long as they eat what they kill (and it's population control/not endangered/etc.), but realistically I know that I couldn't pull the trigger and kill a wild animal (although I could and have killed farm animals specifically born and raised for that purpose). I wouldn't have a problem with you throwing the fat guy onto the tracks (in this hypothetical where you know the outcome before you sacrifice him), but I couldn't do it. I'm sure that says I'm weak-willed or something, but it is what it is. I yam what I yam. And everyone's a bit hypocritical here and there.
I have issue with the "you might". Can you clarify whether you mean "let's say you kill 20 people and save thousands" or "you might kill 20 and you might save thousands"?
I was just throwing out a random guess as to how many people might die in a study like that. But, for the sake of argument, 50 people more or less tortured (let's say against their will "for the sake of the greater good") after being chosen by lottery, 20 of whom die, and for sure thousands will be saved in the future. Many thousands, as hypothermia is not uncommon. It's not a far stretch once you start talking about how it's ok to murder one person because it will save more than one person.Edit: Yes, for the astute observer, I picked hypothermia because of the Nazi experiments, but not because I want to draw a parallel, just because I'm too lazy to come up with my own idea.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just throwing out a random guess as to how many people might die in a study like that. But, for the sake of argument, 50 people more or less tortured (let's say against their will "for the sake of the greater good") after being chosen by lottery, 20 of whom die, and for sure thousands will be saved in the future. Many thousands, as hypothermia is not uncommon. It's not a far stretch once you start talking about how it's ok to murder one person because it will save more than one person.Edit: Yes, for the astute observer, I picked hypothermia because of the Nazi experiments, but not because I want to draw a parallel, just because I'm too lazy to come up with my own idea.
Well, I think that my answer to, "would you kill 20 people to save every other person in the world" would always be yes, regardless of how I'd have to kill the 20 people. Dealing in absolute correct knowledge of the outcome and all that, of course.So I suppose the question becomes a matter of how many I'd be willing to kill to save how many lives. I'd have to really think about it, because I have no idea. Nothing sounds good upon brief examination. Heh.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...