Woman apologizes after video goes viral of her calling police on black birdwatcher

[Smallcock]

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?

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"

This is utterly ridiculous.

It's your obligation to come up with an example since your first one failed.

You need a lot more work on developing your social skills. Not only are you short on deduction skills, the nuance of social interactions, but you're also pulling out theorems and quotes where they don't belong. This is why you're having trouble maneuvering through this simple matter of racist bylaw-breaking Karen denigrating, threatening, and humiliating a bird watcher.

I'll give you props for being able to type while wearing a straight jacket. You and SowelHung make great bedfellows.

 

[Smallcock]

He's a gay birdwatcher.
How threatening do you think he'd be?

He could be threatening even if he's gay or a birdwatcher, or both.

But this particular fellow was your typical well-spoken non-threatening neatly-dressed Harvard grad.

 

[fall]

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.

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.

I may be wrong (as we already established, I am full of doubts while you are very confident), but the "prosecutor" should come up with a plausible story that explain all known facts (and you still did have this story that explains the dog treats on the guy and how he used it). The defence job is simply to put some doubt that the prosecutor's story is wrong and come up with an alternative plausible story. I already gave this story,. You are still not able to propose the possible conversation that could have happened before the incident that does not involve him provoking her. But you surely may make definite (beyond the reasonable doubts) analysis of what someone feels just based on that someone's behaviour at the end of the incident only. Bravo toy you. Whatever you do in life - drop it. You still have a very prosperous career in psychology on front of you.

 

[fall]

This is utterly ridiculous.

It's your obligation to come up with an example since your first one failed.

You need a lot more work on developing your social skills. Not only are you short on deduction skills, the nuance of social interactions, but you're also pulling out theorems and quotes where they don't belong. This is why you're having trouble maneuvering through this simple matter of racist bylaw-breaking Karen denigrating, threatening, and humiliating a bird watcher.

I'll give you props for being able to type while wearing a straight jacket. You and SowelHung make great bedfellows.

What is ridiculous? You are not able to think in abstract categories? You need examples to construct probabilities even when probabilities are already given? Or you make your decisions based on your emotions and feelings instead of rationally taking all facts and possible theories into account and estimating (subjective) probabilities to possible events? Boy, if you are the former, I am so happy that you are not the one making decisions that affect the life of others. So, again, let's assume you had some case as a juror and after hearing all the argument you have decided to use your brain and, given some thought, decide that the accused is, most probably, guilty, but there is still a 5% chance he is innocent. Will you convict? Assume the punishment is adequate to the crime (if the accused is, indeed, guilty) and of the magnitude, say, a successful 40 y.o. doctor losing his licence, and, hence, loosing the ability to work in the field he was trained for for 10 years, or a 2-year minimum-security prison sentence if the accused is someone without specific well-paid job skills that required substantial training.

 

[Insidious Von]

 

[Smallcock]

I may be wrong (as we already established, I am full of doubts while you are very confident), but the "prosecutor" should come up with a plausible story that explain all known facts (and you still did have this story that explains the dog treats on the guy and how he used it). The defence job is simply to put some doubt that the prosecutor's story is wrong and come up with an alternative plausible story. I already gave this story,. You are still not able to propose the possible conversation that could have happened before the incident that does not involve him provoking her. But you surely may make definite (beyond the reasonable doubts) analysis of what someone feels just based on that someone's behaviour at the end of the incident only. Bravo toy you. Whatever you do in life - drop it. You still have a very prosperous career in psychology on front of you.

The video captured what looks like the lion's share of the event, and at minimum the most important part.

It's not that I know what happened before the video started; it's that I can deduce what DIDN'T happen before it started. In other words, based on her behaviour when the video starts one can reasonably surmise that he did NOT threaten her because if he had, she would not berate him, approach him, and threaten him the way she did. See how you can begin putting pieces of a puzzle together working backwards?

There's not enough money in psych to interest me, but I'd kill at it. Besides I find most human behaviour, like Karen's, simple and boring. Granted, I've diverted that knowledge to business/marketing which is more lucrative. Success at those is largely about understanding people - what they do, why they do it, what they desire, and so on.

 

[Smallcock]

What is ridiculous? You are not able to think in abstract categories? You need examples to construct probabilities even when probabilities are already given? Or you make your decisions based on your emotions and feelings instead of rationally taking all facts and possible theories into account and estimating (subjective) probabilities to possible events? Boy, if you are the former, I am so happy that you are not the one making decisions that affect the life of others. So, again, let's assume you had some case as a juror and after hearing all the argument you have decided to use your brain and, given some thought, decide that the accused is, most probably, guilty, but there is still a 5% chance he is innocent. Will you convict? Assume the punishment is adequate to the crime (if the accused is, indeed, guilty) and of the magnitude, say, a successful 40 y.o. doctor losing his licence, and, hence, loosing the ability to work in the field he was trained for for 10 years, or a 2-year minimum-security prison sentence if the accused is someone without specific well-paid job skills that required substantial training.

You're reducing rulings to simple mathematical formula which is imbecilic. There is no such thing as 5% chance of guilt or innocence in a court room. There is reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. Once you learn what these mean, by all means continue your nonsensical support of the apple of your eye, Karen. Ease up on the "abstract thinking" and stay grounded for a little while.

For now TERB has witnessed one imbecilic proposition after another from you and the crowd of laughter at your inanity is growing with every post. Please continue.

 

[Smallcock]

Fall meet Karen, Karen meet Fall. May your love child be better than you are.

 

[fall]

You're reducing rulings to simple mathematical formula which is imbecilic. There is no such thing as 5% chance of guilt or innocence in a court room. There is reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence. Once you learn what these mean, by all means continue your nonsensical support of the apple of your eye, Karen. Ease up on the "abstract thinking" and stay grounded for a little while.

For now TERB has witnessed one imbecilic proposition after another from you and the crowd of laughter at your inanity is growing with every post. Please continue.

Wow, now we are talking that probabilities are not useful in determining "reasonable doubt. Please, educate me, what is "reasonable doubt". Is it just "feeling" of a person who believes that she has doubts and his doubts are reasonable? What is unreasonable doubts? Boy, our education system is really screwed. What is really scary, that such people like you can actually be on the jury and decide the guilt of a person not by considering all possibilities and calculation probabilities, but just because "you have a feeling" and you "simply do not believe that an alternative story ios plausible" although you still cannot define say what a plausible is.

 

[Smallcock]

Wow, now we are talking that probabilities are not useful in determining "reasonable doubt. Please, educate me, what is "reasonable doubt". Is it just "feeling" of a person who believes that she has doubts and his doubts are reasonable? What is unreasonable doubts? Boy, our education system is really screwed. What is really scary, that such people like you can actually be on the jury and decide the guilt of a person not by considering all possibilities and calculation probabilities, but just because "you have a feeling" and you "simply do not believe that an alternative story ios plausible" although you still cannot define say what a plausible is.

I didn't say that probabilities are not useful. I said there is no such thing as percentage breakdowns. Nothing is so defined and certain like a 95/5 split in a scenario like the one we're discussing. You think in a very binary way which is why these legal processes and concepts frustrate you. They come easier to most in the form of 'common sense.' You find them challenging... too much abstract thinking bogging you down.

 

[fall]

The video captured what looks like the lion's share of the event, and at minimum the most important part.

It's not that I know what happened before the video started; it's that I can deduce what DIDN'T happen before it started. In other words, based on her behaviour when the video starts one can reasonably surmise that he did NOT threaten her because if he had, she would not berate him, approach him, and threaten him the way she did. See how you can begin putting pieces of a puzzle together working backwards?

There's not enough money in psych to interest me, but I'd kill at it. Besides I find most human behaviour, like Karen's, simple and boring. Granted, I've diverted that knowledge to business/marketing which is more lucrative. Success at those is largely about understanding people - what they do, why they do it, what they desire, and so on.

Different people behave differently when scared. Fighting back is a defence too. Most people will protect their child first even if they are scared, and many people love their pets almost as much as other love their children. So, no, you cannot deduct all you are saying from tat video, or, at the very least, what you deduct is MOST PROBABLY right, but far from "ALMOST SURE" right. And you are still very conveniently try to avoid the issue of the dog treats. Please, play along, and provide a theory that include ALL facts and explain the behaviour of ALL people on the video.

Here is my theory:
The guy does not like people having dogs off leash and he wanted to :teach them a lesson". He takes dog treats with him so that when people do not immediately put dogs on leash at his request, he will try to give the treats to dogs to make dog owners to immediately call their dogs because they are afraid that what he is giving may be a poison. He chose women to do this stunt, since he is afraid that a large man (especially African-american man) with dog can complement putting the dog on leash with a nice hook in his head. So, I think, the discussion could have been as follows

M: The dogs must be on leash
W: no reaction
M: I said, the dogs must be on leash. Put it in leash right away
W: get lost
M: I said, on the leash. Or I will do something you will not like
W: getting scared, doing nothing
M: Calls the dog, tries to gives him the treat
W: thinks the treat is the poison. She is very scared and angry on the man, he calls her dog, moves toward the man to protect her dog. Finally, she grabbed her dog, she is still scared and angry. She does not know what the man will do next. She is still chaotically comes toward him (as if the dog still needs protection) and away from him (because she remembers the vague threat he made)
M: starts recording, suddenly starts talking in a very calm voice
W: Still afraid of the man and confused. Now she interprets anything that he does as a threat. She is sill in "protect my dog" mode though. As she is no longer able to think straight due to stress and interprets anything that guy does as a threat, and the guy does video recording, she wants him to stop it.
The video starts. The women want the guy to stop what he is doing (as she is still interpret it as a physical threat due to her state of mind and fear), so, she threatens him will calling the cops in hope he will stop and go away, and, when he does not do so, he calls the cops and say what she beliefs (at that time) is true.

How about this story? Do I have proof of it? No. Does it contradict any evidence? No. What is more likely: my story of the fact that the girl is a racist who wanted to get a revenge on a black guy who tried to order her? I would not bet even odds on my story. But I would definitely bet 1:20 odds on my story. My story is PROBABLY. It MIGHT BE true. I am pretty sure that in 20 of similar instances, at least once my story is true. hence, we have the reasonable doubt. Hence, we should not convict her and she should not lose her job. It is better to let 20 murderers go free than to convict one innocent person.

You see, I agree that you are right with 95% probability. Yet, because of the remaining 5%, she should not be convicted even in "public opinion court" and should not be fired. You see, a person who knows the real truth but cannot proof it is not allowed to make the judgement, since who do we know that he is not lying himself.

 

[fall]

I didn't say that probabilities are not useful. I said there is no such thing as percentage breakdowns. Nothing is so defined and certain like a 95/5 split in a scenario like the one we're discussing. You think in a very binary way which is why these legal processes and concepts frustrate you. They come easier to most in the form of 'common sense.' You find them challenging... too much abstract thinking bogging you down.

Nope, I can also add standard deviation and allow the standard deviation to be random too. You see, everything in the word (including physics) can be described by random variables. Your "multidimensional" process is just a desire to avoid thinking. Here is the proof for you

Let A is your "multidimensional set" of facts (evidences presented to you at court)
Let B={guilty, not guilty} verdict that you must make
Hence, function F: A -> B is your decision function

Let I=[0,1] an interval that depicts your subjective probability that the person is guilty
Let G: A->I any function. Ideally, it is a function that assigned your (subjective!) probability of guilty based on element of A.

Consider R to be such subset of A that F(R)="guilty" and F(notR)="not guilty"
Consider p=min(G(R)) and q=max(G(notR).

If p<q, it means that you will make a guilty verdict to a person X and not guilty to a person Y even though you believe that X is more likely to be innocent than Y is.

If we want to avoid the above situation, we must have p>q (or p=q), hence, there is a "verdict" function H: I->B such that for any element a of A we have F(a)=I(G(a)), i.e., probabilities are sufficient to make a verdict

Of course, if you are OK with convicting X and acquitting Y even if you believe that X is more likely innocent than Y is, then there is something really wrong with you

 

[Smallcock]

That's quite a story from the premeditation of the encounter to the victim's change of tone after he started recording. Even if we accept your string of events, it falls apart at an early stage. If she did feel scared after his supposed threat, she would leave the immediate premises. This is what we would expect as a normal reaction under the circumstances that you painted. But that didn't happen and a further verbal confrontation ensued and this is when the camera begins rolling and we see a fearless enraged woman leveraging race in plain sight. It doesn't add up.

A court is a legal authority not a moral authority. This story would get little attention in a court but it is a source of moral outrage. It demonstrates the values and perspectives held by the indivuals involved and hers are counter to the advancement of equality. For this reason, your longing for her day in court to right the perceived wrong of public opinion is a non-starter. A court ruling wouldn't change much of anything. Karen got served in a way that courts understandably fall short. The fallout of her losing her job is appropriate.

Moral of the story is put your dog on a leash if that's the law.

 

[fall]

That's quite a story from the premeditation of the encounter to the victim's change of tone after he started recording. Even if we accept your string of events, it falls apart at an early stage. If she did feel scared after his supposed threat, she would leave the immediate premises. This is what we would expect as a normal reaction under the circumstances that you painted. But that didn't happen and a further verbal confrontation ensued and this is when the camera begins rolling and we see a fearless enraged woman leveraging race in plain sight. It doesn't add up.

A court is a legal authority not a moral authority. This story would get little attention in a court but it is a source of moral outrage. It demonstrates the values and perspectives held by the indivuals involved and hers are counter to the advancement of equality. For this reason, your longing for her day in court to right the perceived wrong of public opinion is a non-starter. A court ruling wouldn't change much of anything. Karen got served in a way that courts understandably fall short. The fallout of her losing her job is appropriate.

Moral of the story is put your dog on a leash if that's the law.

In other words, Lynch court. No defence, no judge, just the law of the crowd. This is an awful world we are living in. Anyone can be easily set up and, instead of the detailed consideration in a court of law, can by lunch by the online crowd and suffer non-virtual loss. Some people like it before, by accident, misunderstanding, or someone's set up, they will not find themselves in such position. When the court acquit a person everybody believe is guilty because of insufficient evidence, it is not a shortcoming of the existing system, it is it strength that protect many innocent people from wrong acquisitions. Hell, so many American and Canadians take the freedom for granted and are willing to give it up for a "common good" - look at all dictatorship regimes: they started as trade off of the freedom and independent justice system for the "common good". No matter how guilty a person can look until he is proven to be guilty in the court of law, no punishment should be given, including reputation punishment.

Well, I've got bored arguing with you: you are not able to provide logical arguments or to think in logical terms. Just to cite Sheldon Cooper in "Project Gorilla" episode: "I guess, ignorance is a bliss" . Let this thread die in peace.

 

[derrick76]

Why has no one posted the actual pre-video conversation according to Christian?

Because it was already known. Thing is Jasmine lied and said he actually threw the treats. So all dat was done and dusted and on they went and she rushed him like she was about to snatch his phone. She couldn't get him to stop recording so she decided she was going to a file false report if given the chance or get the cops to whoop that ass. It's not that complicated.

They should should have just told each other to fuck off and kept moving.

Instead we got....Come quick I am under attack. I am going to die.

Well...not exactly...but you get the picture.

 

[Darts]

What did he mean when he said: "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going like it"?

Then he tried to touch/grab her dog.

 

[SowelHung]

In other words, Lynch court. No defence, no judge, just the law of the crowd. This is an awful world we are living in. Anyone can be easily set up and, instead of the detailed consideration in a court of law, can by lunch by the online crowd and suffer non-virtual loss. Some people like it before, by accident, misunderstanding, or someone's set up, they will not find themselves in such position. When the court acquit a person everybody believe is guilty because of insufficient evidence, it is not a shortcoming of the existing system, it is it strength that protect many innocent people from wrong acquisitions. Hell, so many American and Canadians take the freedom for granted and are willing to give it up for a "common good" - look at all dictatorship regimes: they started as trade off of the freedom and independent justice system for the "common good". No matter how guilty a person can look until he is proven to be guilty in the court of law, no punishment should be given, including reputation punishment.

Well, I've got bored arguing with you: you are not able to provide logical arguments or to think in logical terms. Just to cite Sheldon Cooper in "Project Gorilla" episode: "I guess, ignorance is a bliss" . Let this thread die in peace.

It is your fault getting into arguments with a crazy person.

 

[Indiana]

I’m so confused

 

[Darts]

I’m so confused

Long story short.

Man says to woman to leash your dog. If you don't, I'm going to do something you won't like. Then he tried to grab her dog. Then he video taped her.

 

[Frankfooter]

What did he mean when he said: "I'm going to do what I want and you're not going like it"?

Then he tried to touch/grab her dog.

What I would have done is grabbed the dog by the collar and walked it over to the leashed area.