??? You lost me. Assume you are a juror and you believe that the accused, most probably, is guilty. However, you still think that there may be a coincidence behind the events presented by the prosecutor and there is about 5% chance that the defence is right and he is actually innocent. Will you convict him?
Woman apologizes after video goes viral of her calling police on black birdwatcher
- Thread starter Charlemagne
- Start date
It wouldn't educate her if her identity was blurred. Like she said, the whole incident taught about the luxuries she enjoys that others don't. There is absolutely no reason to censor her identity. Act like a jackass while being recorded and expect that it may end up on social media for entertainment and educational purposes. This is the beauty of our time.For education purposes, the women's face could be blurred. He posted it to have revenge since there surely not enough evidence to have a true case against her in court. By the way, the question remains: why did he have dog treats with him and why did he try to give one to her dog???
I can't reasonably speculate on this. It depends upon countless details of a case as well as the seriousness of the case.??? You lost me. Assume you are a juror and you believe that the accused, most probably, is guilty. However, you still think that there may be a coincidence behind the events presented by the prosecutor and there is about 5% chance that the defence is right and he is actually innocent. Will you convict him?
By the way, my theory that he provoked her and was looking for confrontation is based on the facts: he had dog treats with him although no dog and he tried to give this treats to the dog without her permission (which,given the existing confrontation, is likely to appear to her as him trying to poison the dog). The fact that he was completely calm in the video (that depicted only the final part of the confrontation) and was fast to post it online is consisted with my hypotheses. His behaviour can also be explained by his desire to "make that dog owners to abide by the rules" and, possibly, hate for them. He may also have something against mid-age women and he definitely is a coward by picking a fight with a small women and not a huge tattooed guy.
Remember when you lied and tried to claim that you were a business person? That was crazy.Trying to convince a crazy person that he is crazy is enough to drive one crazy.
The same skill required to pick apart your obvious inexperience in business is the same skill utilized for character assessments in many other areas of life.
OK, let me give you context. Assume somebody who hate prostitution decided to take a photo of everybody exiting a massage parlour studio (right as they exit, door still open and they are on the way out, the photo is taken automatically). The entrance to that studio is next to an entrance to a Chinese buffet. You never used SW services. You want to go to the buffet but accidentally went to the wrong door. You realised it and imminently exited, but your photo is still taken. The photos were taken during one day only and post all the photos (40 male) online. He than reported the MP to the police and police decided to show up. It happened that there were some under aged girls working their. The media picked up on the story and suddenly all these photos are everywhere. Should your employer fire you?I can't reasonably speculate on this. It depends upon countless details of a case as well as the seriousness of the case.
P.S.: assume you re a high-school teacher
He's already explained that she is just one of many people with dogs that are constantly breaking the rules in the park, and that it's a safety issue and a problem for someone wanting to bird watch. Treats can be used to divert, distract dogs (from attack along other things) and/or have their owners comply with the rules. He should probably carry dog spray too. These are not nefarious reasons for having treats and they don't pose a threat to the woman. Her lie was that he threatened her, not the dog.By the way, my theory that he provoked her and was looking for confrontation is based on the facts: he had dog treats with him although no dog and he tried to give this treats to the dog without her permission (which,given the existing confrontation, is likely to appear to her as him trying to poison the dog). The fact that he was completely calm in the video (that depicted only the final part of the confrontation) and was fast to post it online is consisted with my hypotheses. His behaviour can also be explained by his desire to "make that dog owners to abide by the rules" and, possibly, hate for them. He may also have something against mid-age women and he definitely is a coward by picking a fight with a small women and not a huge tattooed guy.
No, because there is reasonable doubt based on the circumstances. Doors are side by side, the man left immediately, photos don't capture much of a story. This is night and day from a minutes long video of two people literally going into detail about what's happening on a per second basis, followed by a guilty plea.OK, let me give you context. Assume somebody who hate prostitution decided to take a photo of everybody exiting a massage parlour studio (right as they exit, door still open and they are on the way out, the photo is taken automatically). The entrance to that studio is next to an entrance to a Chinese buffet. You never used SW services. You want to go to the buffet but accidentally went to the wrong door. You realised it and imminently exited, but your photo is still taken. The photos were taken during one day only and post all the photos (40 male) online. He than reported the MP to the police and police decided to show up. It happened that there were some under aged girls working their. The media picked up on the story and suddenly all these photos are everywhere. Should your employer fire you?
How having dog treats is related to having dog owners to comply with leash rules? How do you know he did not threatened her?He's already explained that she is just one of many people with dogs that are constantly braking the rules in the park, and that it's a safety issue and a problem for someone wanting to bird watch. Treats can be used to divert, distract dogs (from attack along other things) and/or have their owners comply with the rules. He should probably carry dog spray too. These are not nefarious reasons for having treats and they don't pose a threat to the woman. Her lie was that he threatened her, not the dog.
Because I watched the video.How having dog treats is related to having dog owners to comply with leash rules? How do you know he did not threatened her?
Are you playing dumb? How do you know he did not threatened her before the video started? Also, how having dog treats is related to having dog owners complying with leash law?Because I watched the video.
You really believe this? The "public opinion" mob will be all over you, noone will believe you on social media. The employer may believe you, but they will still fire you if you are a public figure or a school teacher because they will have to bow to the public opinion. this is the era we are living in. And it is scary. And you are the part of the problem.No, because there is reasonable doubt based on the circumstances. Doors are side by side, the man left immediately, photos don't capture much of a story. This is night and day from a minutes long video of two people literally going into detail about what's happening on a per second basis, followed by a guilty plea.
Because based on what she says and does in the video you can reasonably infer what happened before the recording. When she takes her phone and starts dictating to the victim about how she will tell police about how he is threatening her, she does so in a manner that's a lie. She's accusing him of something he didn't do. He's not in the least bit concerned since she's lying. Actions - threatened females don't approach males that they've just been threatened by.This is obvious to those that engage in normal social interactions.Are you playing dumb? How do you know he did not threatened her before the video started? Also, how having dog thetas is related to having dog owners complying with leash law?
You need to come up with a better example. The dubious parlour door example won't cause anyone any concern. If a teacher wants to eat at a buffet or get his wiener sucked at an MP on his own time, that's his prerogative.You really believe this? The "public opinion" mob will be all over you, noone will believe you on social media. The employer may believe you, but they will still fire you if you are a public figure or a school teacher because they will have to bow to the public opinion. this is the era we are living in. And it is scary. And you are the part of the problem.
We have lack of testing, so garbage data. A small change in the transmissibility of the virus, in the order of 5%, is the difference between a virus a rages unchecked and one the burns itself out, so the sensitivity of any model you make is very high. The only future projection you can make is that in the future you will make shitty projections.Actually, there are two people who believe that half truth is enough on its own and if some evidence are missing, they can be ignored instead of assuming any missing evidence that can be a part of non-self-contradictory theory should be taken into account. One is smallcock here. Another is doggystyle99 who tries to compare Sweden and Norway COVID response efficiency using only historical data (without making future projections). No full truth = no proof = no punishment. This is the way it should be.
OK, so, one thing you can say is: volatility of the prediction is high. It is an important fact by itself in decision making.We have lack of testing, so garbage data. A small change in the transmissibility of the virus, in the order of 5%, is the difference between a virus a rages unchecked and one the burns itself out, so the sensitivity of any model you make is very high. The only future projection you can make is that in the future you will make shitty projections.
Really, you really able to deduct all of that just from that video? Wow, you must be a genius. Although let me cite one famous quote: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.".Because based on what she says and does in the video you can reasonably infer what happened before the recording. When she takes her phone and starts dictating to the victim about how she will tell police about how he is threatening her, she does so in a manner that's a lie. She's accusing him of something he didn't do. He's not in the least bit concerned since she's lying. Actions - threatened females don't approach males that they've just been threatened by.This is obvious to those that engage in normal social interactions.
By the way, just to play, could you, please, describe what you believe has happened before the video starts. In your description, please, make sure to take into account the dog treats that the gut had with him (both how he used them in this incident and the reason for having them). And try to make your story consistent with what the video shows.
OK, forget about example. Make your own example in your mind in which you believe that there is 95% chance the accused is guilty and 5% the accused is innocent. Will you convict?You need to come up with a better example. The dubious parlour door example won't cause anyone any concern. If a teacher wants to eat at a buffet or get his wiener sucked at an MP on his own time, that's his prerogative.
P.S.: to come up with some example, thing of any example you want to, and then alter the presented facts to gradually change the probability to achieve the desired 95%/5% split. By the theorem that the continuous function takes all the values between its maximum and minimum on a closed interval, you can always have such example. hence, you can ignore the example altogether and simply assume 95%/5% split as given fro your "moral dilemma"
He's a gay birdwatcher.Are you playing dumb? How do you know he did not threatened her before the video started? Also, how having dog treats is related to having dog owners complying with leash law?
How threatening do you think he'd be?
Yes I can deduct that from the video. Not a genius. This is also how courts determine guilt or innocence since they rarely have 100% of the facts available.Really, you really able to deduct all of that just from that video? Wow, you must be a genius. Although let me cite one famous quote: "The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.".
By the way, just to play, could you, please, describe what you believe has happened before the video starts. In your description, please, make sure to take into account the dog treats that the gut had with him (both how he used them in this incident and the reason for having them). And try to make your story consistent with what the video shows.
As I and many others have said multiple times, a woman that is threatened does not approach a man that has threatened her, does not display the confidence, authority, and control that this woman did behaviorally. Likewise, if they've been threatened and are relaying calling the cops, they state (especially in anger) what threats the person has made to them. "I'm calling the cops because you just threatened to X,Y,Z me, you asshole". That didn't happen here. Everything about her physical and verbal approach suggests she was imposing her will on someone she believed she could abuse without recourse. You must use these clues to up your deduction game.
If you require a full video to come to any conclusion, you're unfit to preside in a court room or serve on a jury. These require some basic common sense and reasonableness.
In all of your "probabilities" scenarios - one being that she's not racist (which she is and it is blatantly obvious to just about everyone else) - and your lies (that he was a poorly dressed threatening black stereotype) - the likelihood of what you believe happened before the recording drops to zero.
