Dirt bike thief gets conked in the head with a loading ramp

jemcee wrote:

A lot of people asking 'what would you do if you saw your dad attacked with a hammer' I think I might be in the minority...

A lot of people asking 'what would you do if you saw your dad attacked with a hammer' I think I might be in the minority but I'd be more concerned about making sure he was ok than stopping someone take my shitty bike or repeatedly punching the bloke in the face while he's bleeding out on the ground.. "Family above all else" apparently not

This video is shocking.. well it should be shocking, but it's not.. All I know is this world is becoming an increasing cunt of a place to be

TeamGreen wrote:

Ok.
I’ll bite.

What were the bike owner’s “self-interests” after the thief hit him and his dad with a hammer AND proceeded to steal his bike?

MPJC wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First, there's little reason to believe that self-interest - rational or otherwise - motivated the son in this case. It was likely something more like rage or some other emotion. So you need to separate actual motivations from ideal motivations, which are the motives on which one would act if they were worked out what is in their rational self-interest (and sometimes the actual and ideal motives will lead to the same decision, but that's little more than a happy accident when it happens). Your interests in a situation where your loved one has been assaulted and you're being robbed are the safety of your loved one, your own safety, not giving up your property, and not going to jail for whatever it is that you do. I suppose there could be some secondary but less rational interests such as pride, but I think it would be best to disregard those. You will want to get some sense of the probable outcomes of each possible course of action. If the robber is already leaving with your property, then if you do nothing the probability of losing your property but maintaining your safety and freedom will be approaching 100%. If his back is turned and you have a clear shot with a weapon the probability of retaining your property is quite high, but the probability of forfeiting your freedom (which, presumably is much more valuable than your property) also increases (by how much depends on the variables of the situation and the jurisdiction). If what you have is a situation where you will engage in a fight, then all bets are off. It may be rational to assume a 50% chance if the only knowledge you have is that the other guy looks about your size, but you may lack other crucial knowledge - both about yourself and him. So, the actual probability and the probability that it is rational to assume in a state of relative ignorance may be radically divergent. This is why it is a massive risk. Given the stakes (say, a 2003 YZ250F), the risk hardly seems worth it. That would, of course, change if the assailant poses a continued risk. Defending yourself (and others) is the priority - it is the overriding interest.

The possible variables that can change which course of action is rational are nearly endless. Your goal should be to maximize the chances of positive outcomes and minimize the chances of negative outcomes. If you want to play with various scenarios you can plug the probabilities into Bayes' theorem and actually calculate the probabilities of various outcomes given whatever variables you like. This idea that if there are 2 possible outcomes each is equally probable is one of the most unbelievably silly things I've ever heard.

TeamGreen wrote:

Ok.
I’ll bite.

What were the bike owner’s “self-interests” after the thief hit him and his dad with a hammer AND proceeded to steal his bike?

MPJC wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First, there's little reason to believe that self-interest - rational or otherwise - motivated the son in this case. It was likely something more like rage or some other emotion. So you need to separate actual motivations from ideal motivations, which are the motives on which one would act if they were worked out what is in their rational self-interest (and sometimes the actual and ideal motives will lead to the same decision, but that's little more than a happy accident when it happens). Your interests in a situation where your loved one has been assaulted and you're being robbed are the safety of your loved one, your own safety, not giving up your property, and not going to jail for whatever it is that you do. I suppose there could be some secondary but less rational interests such as pride, but I think it would be best to disregard those. You will want to get some sense of the probable outcomes of each possible course of action. If the robber is already leaving with your property, then if you do nothing the probability of losing your property but maintaining your safety and freedom will be approaching 100%. If his back is turned and you have a clear shot with a weapon the probability of retaining your property is quite high, but the probability of forfeiting your freedom (which, presumably is much more valuable than your property) also increases (by how much depends on the variables of the situation and the jurisdiction). If what you have is a situation where you will engage in a fight, then all bets are off. It may be rational to assume a 50% chance if the only knowledge you have is that the other guy looks about your size, but you may lack other crucial knowledge - both about yourself and him. So, the actual probability and the probability that it is rational to assume in a state of relative ignorance may be radically divergent. This is why it is a massive risk. Given the stakes (say, a 2003 YZ250F), the risk hardly seems worth it. That would, of course, change if the assailant poses a continued risk. Defending yourself (and others) is the priority - it is the overriding interest.

The possible variables that can change which course of action is rational are nearly endless. Your goal should be to maximize the chances of positive outcomes and minimize the chances of negative outcomes. If you want to play with various scenarios you can plug the probabilities into Bayes' theorem and actually calculate the probabilities of various outcomes given whatever variables you like. This idea that if there are 2 possible outcomes each is equally probable is one of the most unbelievably silly things I've ever heard.

TeamGreen wrote:

I was thinking more simply and guessing as to what the analysis might be...& you touched on some of it: Survival (Self) Protect (Family) Defend (Property)...

I was thinking more simply and guessing as to what the analysis might be...& you touched on some of it:
Survival (Self)
Protect (Family)
Defend (Property)
All of which, especially in the face of being surprise-attacked during a business transaction, makes for one helluva defense of his actions and state of mind.

jemcee wrote:

A lot of people asking 'what would you do if you saw your dad attacked with a hammer' I think I might be in the minority...

A lot of people asking 'what would you do if you saw your dad attacked with a hammer' I think I might be in the minority but I'd be more concerned about making sure he was ok than stopping someone take my shitty bike or repeatedly punching the bloke in the face while he's bleeding out on the ground.. "Family above all else" apparently not

This video is shocking.. well it should be shocking, but it's not.. All I know is this world is becoming an increasing cunt of a place to be

snowy816 wrote:

The unfortunate thing is - no one knows how they would react when this happened unless you were in that situation. Its called Adrenaline and once...

The unfortunate thing is - no one knows how they would react when this happened unless you were in that situation. Its called Adrenaline and once that fear and adrenaline gets going indicates what each individual would do! And the same situation on a different day the same person could react different.

Like in Oil Rigs we train for blowouts, this doesn't mean you will react the way you were trained in a "REAL LIFE" situation. I have seen guys run for the hills and seen guys stand right beside their driller. Also close friend of my father ran back into the fire while others ran for the hills...

Again you can never say what you would do unless you were there.

For all we know most would piss their pants and cry. OR react exactly like that young kid out of fear and adrenaline. EG: Maybe they had to sell the bike because the bank was going to foreclose on dads house if payments wasn't met? No one knows.

I don't condone death, but doing what that kid did I had no issue with.

blockhead17 wrote:

Would be an interesting plot twist if the guy with the hammer was trying to get his bike back that was stolen by the kid.. You...

Would be an interesting plot twist if the guy with the hammer was trying to get his bike back that was stolen by the kid..
You all still want the guy who is trying to get his own bike back dead?

omalley wrote:

Observations, valid at least where I am WA): The suspect tried to steal a bike, but did so using force (hammer), which means it’s a robbery...

Observations, valid at least where I am WA):

The suspect tried to steal a bike, but did so using force (hammer), which means it’s a robbery (force plus theft) and a deadly weapon. This makes it a BARRK felony (Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, Kidnapping). These are the most heinous of violent/dangerous crimes other than murder. As a result, use of force threshold to prevent them and/or prevent the flight of the suspect is higher with these crimes.
In addition, the suspect wasn’t riding or walking away when he got whacked, he was RE-engaging the victim (kid). Further, he may or may not have the hammer still, but that’s irrelevant as he has already used one deadly weapon and may have others on his person.

CRIMINALLY, I’d hope that the kid is cleared as self-defense.

Unfortunately, CIVILLY I am sure the turds family, who probably wanted nothing to do with him to this point, will suddenly be the “grieving family” whose son/dad/brother/cousin “didn’t do nothin”...

OldYZRider1 wrote:

In the video [url=http://longisland.news12.com/story/40613242/police-online-sale-leads-to-attempted-motorbike-theft-3-hospitalized]here[/url] you'll see a medic tending to the kids dad and it appears he's bandaged on the left side of his head. I...

In the video here you'll see a medic tending to the kids dad and it appears he's bandaged on the left side of his head. I believe he's the guy you see walk back up to the back of the truck as the kid whacks the guy with the ramp. When the kid yells "he hit my Dad with a hammer" he points in this guys direction.

Also you'll see the medics tending to the perp. He's sitting up and conscious. Then they show him being loaded in the ambulance.

There's a shot of the ramp and a claw hammer laying on the pavement.

So if the guy hits this kids Dad in the head with a hammer; to me that assault with deadly force and a comparable response would be justified.

Texas Built wrote:

0 shits given. Bad guy used a weapon to try to commit robbery. In Texas that's called aggravated robbery. Lethal force is accepted as a response...

0 shits given.

Bad guy used a weapon to try to commit robbery. In Texas that's called aggravated robbery. Lethal force is accepted as a response. In Texas he would have got shot. Cops would give victim a high 5 and that would be the end of it.

Don't run around trying to hit people with hammers, playing knockout game etc.....

blockhead17 wrote:

Would be an interesting plot twist if the guy with the hammer was trying to get his bike back that was stolen by the kid.. You...

Would be an interesting plot twist if the guy with the hammer was trying to get his bike back that was stolen by the kid..
You all still want the guy who is trying to get his own bike back dead?

DanDunes818 wrote:

You suspect the father and son over the hammer swinging "buyer"? That seems like a stretch in this situation, but if that was the case, I...

You suspect the father and son over the hammer swinging "buyer"? That seems like a stretch in this situation, but if that was the case, I would say it was a very poorly executed mission. You would think if he was recovering his own shit, he would not come alone and if he did come alone and instead of calling 911 he decided to start swinging a hammer at people, he once again likely got what he had coming.

MPJC wrote:

You can’t possibly believe that prior to an altercation each combatant has a 50% chance. That ignores background knowledge and prior probabilities. Bayes theorem is what...

You can’t possibly believe that prior to an altercation each combatant has a 50% chance. That ignores background knowledge and prior probabilities. Bayes theorem is what you need, not a coin. If, say, we know that one person is trained (eg. military) and the other is not then we know that the military person has an advantage. He’s apt to be trained to deal with surprises and to be aware enough of his surroundings to not give you a chance to use whatever weapon is available. The problem in a street fight is you probably lack the background knowledge so you can’t realistically gauge your odds - especially if you’re not very familiar with your own ability. The fact that you can’t calculate them due to lack of knowledge doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And they may be stacked badly against you. The only difference with the Tyson\Bieber example is that it seems preposterous given our background knowledge. That illustrates the point about the relevance of background knowledge and prior probabilities.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you. I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ...

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ community if I ask. You either A) do, or B ) do not. Those are the possibilities.

You get in a fight. You either A) kick ass, or B ) get your ass kicked. Those are the possibilities. The odds don't change until a variable is encountered that changes the probability. In this case, the variable is a hammer and a loading ramp.

We're not talking about who has a better chance at winning based on training and skills and what a Vegas bookie would put for a spread. We're talking about the possible outcomes of an encounter before a person makes their decision to stand up to the would be robber. You either A) get robbed, or B ) don't get robbed. Those are the possibilities. 50/50.

MPJC wrote:

I’m truly astonished. You really have no idea how utterly stupid you’re being. Nor do I have any reason to believe that your capable of developing...

I’m truly astonished. You really have no idea how utterly stupid you’re being. Nor do I have any reason to believe that your capable of developing an idea. Your posts perfectly embody the Dunning Kruger effect. I have actual expertise in rational choice theory and this conversation is painful for me.

jemcee wrote:

A lot of people asking 'what would you do if you saw your dad attacked with a hammer' I think I might be in the minority...

A lot of people asking 'what would you do if you saw your dad attacked with a hammer' I think I might be in the minority but I'd be more concerned about making sure he was ok than stopping someone take my shitty bike or repeatedly punching the bloke in the face while he's bleeding out on the ground.. "Family above all else" apparently not

This video is shocking.. well it should be shocking, but it's not.. All I know is this world is becoming an increasing cunt of a place to be

snowy816 wrote:

The unfortunate thing is - no one knows how they would react when this happened unless you were in that situation. Its called Adrenaline and once...

The unfortunate thing is - no one knows how they would react when this happened unless you were in that situation. Its called Adrenaline and once that fear and adrenaline gets going indicates what each individual would do! And the same situation on a different day the same person could react different.

Like in Oil Rigs we train for blowouts, this doesn't mean you will react the way you were trained in a "REAL LIFE" situation. I have seen guys run for the hills and seen guys stand right beside their driller. Also close friend of my father ran back into the fire while others ran for the hills...

Again you can never say what you would do unless you were there.

For all we know most would piss their pants and cry. OR react exactly like that young kid out of fear and adrenaline. EG: Maybe they had to sell the bike because the bank was going to foreclose on dads house if payments wasn't met? No one knows.

I don't condone death, but doing what that kid did I had no issue with.

MPJC wrote:

You can’t possibly believe that prior to an altercation each combatant has a 50% chance. That ignores background knowledge and prior probabilities. Bayes theorem is what...

You can’t possibly believe that prior to an altercation each combatant has a 50% chance. That ignores background knowledge and prior probabilities. Bayes theorem is what you need, not a coin. If, say, we know that one person is trained (eg. military) and the other is not then we know that the military person has an advantage. He’s apt to be trained to deal with surprises and to be aware enough of his surroundings to not give you a chance to use whatever weapon is available. The problem in a street fight is you probably lack the background knowledge so you can’t realistically gauge your odds - especially if you’re not very familiar with your own ability. The fact that you can’t calculate them due to lack of knowledge doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And they may be stacked badly against you. The only difference with the Tyson\Bieber example is that it seems preposterous given our background knowledge. That illustrates the point about the relevance of background knowledge and prior probabilities.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you. I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ...

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ community if I ask. You either A) do, or B ) do not. Those are the possibilities.

You get in a fight. You either A) kick ass, or B ) get your ass kicked. Those are the possibilities. The odds don't change until a variable is encountered that changes the probability. In this case, the variable is a hammer and a loading ramp.

We're not talking about who has a better chance at winning based on training and skills and what a Vegas bookie would put for a spread. We're talking about the possible outcomes of an encounter before a person makes their decision to stand up to the would be robber. You either A) get robbed, or B ) don't get robbed. Those are the possibilities. 50/50.

mx900 wrote:

I read on here about material things being more important than human life and I dont feel like that is the point at all. I feel...

I read on here about material things being more important than human life and I dont feel like that is the point at all. I feel most of the members on here work hard to have what they do. I feel not a member here looks for a reason to hurt anyone but I feel all have the right to defend themselves and their stuff. When people choose to violate the rights or property of others they should expect in advance the actions of others just might be the same as they have chose to impose on the ones they are violating.

mx900 wrote:

I read on here about material things being more important than human life and I dont feel like that is the point at all. I feel...

I read on here about material things being more important than human life and I dont feel like that is the point at all. I feel most of the members on here work hard to have what they do. I feel not a member here looks for a reason to hurt anyone but I feel all have the right to defend themselves and their stuff. When people choose to violate the rights or property of others they should expect in advance the actions of others just might be the same as they have chose to impose on the ones they are violating.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

All the people saying "Its just a dirt bike. Let it go" obviously have enough money to get another one. For all we know this kid...

All the people saying "Its just a dirt bike. Let it go" obviously have enough money to get another one. For all we know this kid, or his dad, mowed lawns and busted his ass for a long time to get that "POS 2003 YZ 250f". Deciding what's justifiable for a stranger while reading a story on a forum is a huge leap. He did what he thought he needed to do. End of story. If it happened again results may vary. That's for the father and son to decide.

MPJC wrote:

You can’t possibly believe that prior to an altercation each combatant has a 50% chance. That ignores background knowledge and prior probabilities. Bayes theorem is what...

You can’t possibly believe that prior to an altercation each combatant has a 50% chance. That ignores background knowledge and prior probabilities. Bayes theorem is what you need, not a coin. If, say, we know that one person is trained (eg. military) and the other is not then we know that the military person has an advantage. He’s apt to be trained to deal with surprises and to be aware enough of his surroundings to not give you a chance to use whatever weapon is available. The problem in a street fight is you probably lack the background knowledge so you can’t realistically gauge your odds - especially if you’re not very familiar with your own ability. The fact that you can’t calculate them due to lack of knowledge doesn’t mean they don’t exist. And they may be stacked badly against you. The only difference with the Tyson\Bieber example is that it seems preposterous given our background knowledge. That illustrates the point about the relevance of background knowledge and prior probabilities.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you. I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ...

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ community if I ask. You either A) do, or B ) do not. Those are the possibilities.

You get in a fight. You either A) kick ass, or B ) get your ass kicked. Those are the possibilities. The odds don't change until a variable is encountered that changes the probability. In this case, the variable is a hammer and a loading ramp.

We're not talking about who has a better chance at winning based on training and skills and what a Vegas bookie would put for a spread. We're talking about the possible outcomes of an encounter before a person makes their decision to stand up to the would be robber. You either A) get robbed, or B ) don't get robbed. Those are the possibilities. 50/50.

mx317 wrote:

I don't think your math is correct either. That's like saying there is a 50/50 (50%) chance of rain today because it will either rain or...

I don't think your math is correct either. That's like saying there is a 50/50 (50%) chance of rain today because it will either rain or it won't. Just like my Dad told me when I was a boy, in a fight someone has the advantage. He is either bigger, tougher, meaner, better trained, etc., He told me to make the advantage mine however I had to by grabbing whatever I could get my hands on. SO the math may not be 50/50 if I have a bat and you don't. The probability may be shifted to some other ratio.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you. I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ...

It's math bro. I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know you so therefore you have a 50% chance of belonging to the LGBTQ community if I ask. You either A) do, or B ) do not. Those are the possibilities.

You get in a fight. You either A) kick ass, or B ) get your ass kicked. Those are the possibilities. The odds don't change until a variable is encountered that changes the probability. In this case, the variable is a hammer and a loading ramp.

We're not talking about who has a better chance at winning based on training and skills and what a Vegas bookie would put for a spread. We're talking about the possible outcomes of an encounter before a person makes their decision to stand up to the would be robber. You either A) get robbed, or B ) don't get robbed. Those are the possibilities. 50/50.

mx317 wrote:

I don't think your math is correct either. That's like saying there is a 50/50 (50%) chance of rain today because it will either rain or...

I don't think your math is correct either. That's like saying there is a 50/50 (50%) chance of rain today because it will either rain or it won't. Just like my Dad told me when I was a boy, in a fight someone has the advantage. He is either bigger, tougher, meaner, better trained, etc., He told me to make the advantage mine however I had to by grabbing whatever I could get my hands on. SO the math may not be 50/50 if I have a bat and you don't. The probability may be shifted to some other ratio.

aFACEdismembered wrote:

You find that out when the fight starts though. Before the fight starts it is an unknown because you have no data to draw an assumption...

You find that out when the fight starts though. Before the fight starts it is an unknown because you have no data to draw an assumption. If we all went off the "someone has an advantage" then no one would fight because the doubt of being at a disadvantage would cause both sides to walk away. That's psychology, not statistics.

My original response to him was in relation to people thinking they have better chances at winning a fight than they actually do. That would apply to BOTH individuals. Only thing is, he keeps using the "superior fighter" example to prove it wrong. To be a "superior fighter" you have to know you're opponents abilities as well as your own. In this situation, hammer boy and ramp son don't know each other's abilities so they enter their fight with one another with the same odds until an action is taken.

Hammer boys odds significantly dropped when he let his guard down. If anything, I would argue the opposite and say that ramp son had BETTER than 50/50 odds because he had the element of surprise. Every instance is situational. Before the situation presents itself there are 2 outcomes. Win or lose. With no prior data you're just as likely to flip a coin to get a result. He keeps using the son as the "weakling" to support his claims without considering the option that the robber was the weakling. It's a biased example to set himself up for being right to prove his point. His point has nothing to do with my original post.

TeamGreen wrote:

Ok.
I’ll bite.

What were the bike owner’s “self-interests” after the thief hit him and his dad with a hammer AND proceeded to steal his bike?

MPJC wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First, there's little reason to believe that self-interest - rational or otherwise - motivated the son in this case. It was likely something more like rage or some other emotion. So you need to separate actual motivations from ideal motivations, which are the motives on which one would act if they were worked out what is in their rational self-interest (and sometimes the actual and ideal motives will lead to the same decision, but that's little more than a happy accident when it happens). Your interests in a situation where your loved one has been assaulted and you're being robbed are the safety of your loved one, your own safety, not giving up your property, and not going to jail for whatever it is that you do. I suppose there could be some secondary but less rational interests such as pride, but I think it would be best to disregard those. You will want to get some sense of the probable outcomes of each possible course of action. If the robber is already leaving with your property, then if you do nothing the probability of losing your property but maintaining your safety and freedom will be approaching 100%. If his back is turned and you have a clear shot with a weapon the probability of retaining your property is quite high, but the probability of forfeiting your freedom (which, presumably is much more valuable than your property) also increases (by how much depends on the variables of the situation and the jurisdiction). If what you have is a situation where you will engage in a fight, then all bets are off. It may be rational to assume a 50% chance if the only knowledge you have is that the other guy looks about your size, but you may lack other crucial knowledge - both about yourself and him. So, the actual probability and the probability that it is rational to assume in a state of relative ignorance may be radically divergent. This is why it is a massive risk. Given the stakes (say, a 2003 YZ250F), the risk hardly seems worth it. That would, of course, change if the assailant poses a continued risk. Defending yourself (and others) is the priority - it is the overriding interest.

The possible variables that can change which course of action is rational are nearly endless. Your goal should be to maximize the chances of positive outcomes and minimize the chances of negative outcomes. If you want to play with various scenarios you can plug the probabilities into Bayes' theorem and actually calculate the probabilities of various outcomes given whatever variables you like. This idea that if there are 2 possible outcomes each is equally probable is one of the most unbelievably silly things I've ever heard.

TeamGreen wrote:

Ok.
I’ll bite.

What were the bike owner’s “self-interests” after the thief hit him and his dad with a hammer AND proceeded to steal his bike?

MPJC wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First, there's little reason to believe that self-interest - rational or otherwise - motivated the son in this case. It was likely something more like rage or some other emotion. So you need to separate actual motivations from ideal motivations, which are the motives on which one would act if they were worked out what is in their rational self-interest (and sometimes the actual and ideal motives will lead to the same decision, but that's little more than a happy accident when it happens). Your interests in a situation where your loved one has been assaulted and you're being robbed are the safety of your loved one, your own safety, not giving up your property, and not going to jail for whatever it is that you do. I suppose there could be some secondary but less rational interests such as pride, but I think it would be best to disregard those. You will want to get some sense of the probable outcomes of each possible course of action. If the robber is already leaving with your property, then if you do nothing the probability of losing your property but maintaining your safety and freedom will be approaching 100%. If his back is turned and you have a clear shot with a weapon the probability of retaining your property is quite high, but the probability of forfeiting your freedom (which, presumably is much more valuable than your property) also increases (by how much depends on the variables of the situation and the jurisdiction). If what you have is a situation where you will engage in a fight, then all bets are off. It may be rational to assume a 50% chance if the only knowledge you have is that the other guy looks about your size, but you may lack other crucial knowledge - both about yourself and him. So, the actual probability and the probability that it is rational to assume in a state of relative ignorance may be radically divergent. This is why it is a massive risk. Given the stakes (say, a 2003 YZ250F), the risk hardly seems worth it. That would, of course, change if the assailant poses a continued risk. Defending yourself (and others) is the priority - it is the overriding interest.

The possible variables that can change which course of action is rational are nearly endless. Your goal should be to maximize the chances of positive outcomes and minimize the chances of negative outcomes. If you want to play with various scenarios you can plug the probabilities into Bayes' theorem and actually calculate the probabilities of various outcomes given whatever variables you like. This idea that if there are 2 possible outcomes each is equally probable is one of the most unbelievably silly things I've ever heard.

dcg141 wrote:

Your dad just got hit with a hammer. You have maybe 1 to 2 seconds to make a decision. Your really going to think that deeply...

Your dad just got hit with a hammer. You have maybe 1 to 2 seconds to make a decision. Your really going to think that deeply about your reaction.

MPJC wrote:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First...

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "bite", but I can say a bit more about these sorts of situations if you wish. First, there's little reason to believe that self-interest - rational or otherwise - motivated the son in this case. It was likely something more like rage or some other emotion. So you need to separate actual motivations from ideal motivations, which are the motives on which one would act if they were worked out what is in their rational self-interest (and sometimes the actual and ideal motives will lead to the same decision, but that's little more than a happy accident when it happens). Your interests in a situation where your loved one has been assaulted and you're being robbed are the safety of your loved one, your own safety, not giving up your property, and not going to jail for whatever it is that you do. I suppose there could be some secondary but less rational interests such as pride, but I think it would be best to disregard those. You will want to get some sense of the probable outcomes of each possible course of action. If the robber is already leaving with your property, then if you do nothing the probability of losing your property but maintaining your safety and freedom will be approaching 100%. If his back is turned and you have a clear shot with a weapon the probability of retaining your property is quite high, but the probability of forfeiting your freedom (which, presumably is much more valuable than your property) also increases (by how much depends on the variables of the situation and the jurisdiction). If what you have is a situation where you will engage in a fight, then all bets are off. It may be rational to assume a 50% chance if the only knowledge you have is that the other guy looks about your size, but you may lack other crucial knowledge - both about yourself and him. So, the actual probability and the probability that it is rational to assume in a state of relative ignorance may be radically divergent. This is why it is a massive risk. Given the stakes (say, a 2003 YZ250F), the risk hardly seems worth it. That would, of course, change if the assailant poses a continued risk. Defending yourself (and others) is the priority - it is the overriding interest.

The possible variables that can change which course of action is rational are nearly endless. Your goal should be to maximize the chances of positive outcomes and minimize the chances of negative outcomes. If you want to play with various scenarios you can plug the probabilities into Bayes' theorem and actually calculate the probabilities of various outcomes given whatever variables you like. This idea that if there are 2 possible outcomes each is equally probable is one of the most unbelievably silly things I've ever heard.

dcg141 wrote:

Your dad just got hit with a hammer. You have maybe 1 to 2 seconds to make a decision. Your really going to think that deeply...

Your dad just got hit with a hammer. You have maybe 1 to 2 seconds to make a decision. Your really going to think that deeply about your reaction.

MPJC wrote:

Of course you wouldn't and I explicitly say that one's reaction would be motivated by emotion (e.g. rage, fear). That's normal and expected. But it can...

Of course you wouldn't and I explicitly say that one's reaction would be motivated by emotion (e.g. rage, fear). That's normal and expected. But it can also be helpful to think about what the ideal reaction would be apart from actually being in that situation in the hopes that some of that might filter into your reactions if you're ever actually in that situation.