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

Related:
Create New Tag

6/12/2019 8:44 PM

aFACEdismembered wrote:

I'm not trying to argue with you. Once the fight starts or you get hit with the first Tyson punch to the face those odds change. That's why Dad stopped fighting. He got hit with a fucking hammer. Son, on the other hand, still had good odds and he was rewarded with his quick decision making. Element of surprise. You can't surprise a professional boxer in a square ring who shows up knowing he's going to fight. A criminal with a hammer in a parking lot? Clearly, he didn't show up expecting a fight.

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 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 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.

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.

|

Current rides: 2016 KTM 250SXF, 2017 KTM 350SXF

6/12/2019 8:49 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/12/2019 8:51 PM

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 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 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 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.

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?

|

I ripped a start from Egypt and I was happy about that.

6/12/2019 9:22 PM

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?

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.

|

Current rides: 2016 KTM 250SXF, 2017 KTM 350SXF

6/12/2019 9:23 PM

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

|

why am I reading this? ..... Oh christ, now I'm posting...... shiiiiiiiit!!

6/12/2019 9:34 PM

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 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

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.

|

6/12/2019 9:35 PM

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 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

I'm pretty sure I would take the perp down. My Pop my be dead, and if that guy scoots off, the police may never see him again. If I whack him in the head, he's laying there out cold, well, the police have no problem picking him up.

|

6/12/2019 9:40 PM

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 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.

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, 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.

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.

|

I ripped a start from Egypt and I was happy about that.

6/12/2019 9:51 PM

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, 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)
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.

As far as a legal defence goes, the court should certainly take into consideration state of mind given the obviously highly stressful situation. And if it's a crime, it's a crime of passion, which is a mitigating factor. What a judge or jury takes into consideration can be quite different from what one considers when one contemplates how one ought to react if fully rational. The reason that a crime of passion is judged less harshly is it is committed in a state when one can't really be expected to be fully rational.

|

Current rides: 2016 KTM 250SXF, 2017 KTM 350SXF

6/12/2019 9:58 PM

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 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 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.

Yeah I get that.. And I really wasn't trying to pass judgement on anyone that disagrees with me (I prob failed that haha)
I guess these days people are just so fucken angry, violence is everywhere..
Should also clarify I think the thief is a complete fuckwit and deserved a beating (that shit was rough though, I'll get called a pussy now)

I guess if pressed I'll only standby my last sentence haha

|

why am I reading this? ..... Oh christ, now I'm posting...... shiiiiiiiit!!

6/12/2019 10:30 PM

Fuck that asshole. I hope he dies.

|

6/12/2019 10:36 PM

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?

|

6/12/2019 10:39 PM

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.....

|

6/12/2019 10:43 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/12/2019 10:49 PM



|

6/12/2019 11:06 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/12/2019 11:08 PM

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 all still want the guy who is trying to get his own bike back dead?

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.

|

6/12/2019 11:14 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/12/2019 11:15 PM

But what would have Jeffrey Herlings done?

|

6/12/2019 11:19 PM

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 (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”...

Did you just describe what might happen here or what happens every fucking month in the south side of Chicago!

He wasn't pointing the gun at them he was just showing them how shiney it was since he just polished it. He din do nuffin!

As to what everyone else is saying yeah if this was me i would have done the same or worse. I have zero problems putting a bullet in somone that has it coming. If he dies well that was his choice he made it but I don't want the theif to die. Hopefully he come out of this not cross eyed and thinks twice about his life. I know too many people that were down that path that are now doing great and truly good people, also know some people that need that final bullet though to.

|

6/12/2019 11:33 PM

OldYZRider1 wrote:

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.

It's incredibly irresponsible of them to call this a fight. News is such a crock of "throw it in the production template" shit.

|

6/12/2019 11:39 PM

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. 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.....

Excuse my ignorance but why would have this situation unfolded differently in Texas?

|

6/13/2019 1:03 AM

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 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 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.

Oh I don’t think it actually happened.. just sayin

|

6/13/2019 4:16 AM
Edited Date/Time: 6/13/2019 4:18 AM

So the kid is holding the bike at the beginning of the video. The kid with the ramp pushes him, knocking him back and dropping the bike. The kid continues to pick up the bike again, and the kid with the ramp hits him/the bike with the ramp, knocking it down completely. That's the crash you hear early on. The kid casually walks around the bike, bends over to pick something up, and then gets hit in the head with the ramp. Is it just me, or did the kid trying to take the bike seem way too calm for a robbery going on and after getting a ramp swung at him once already? Then to casually walk around in front of the kid and bend over and take a ramp to the head. There's got to be more to the story. I'd almost be willing to bet they knew each other prior to this. If a complete stranger's swinging a 50 pound loading ramp at you, you don't casually walk right in front of them to let them take another swing.

I think the thing that's going to really fuck the one that swung the ramp is the fact that he went over and started punching his lifeless body. Unfortunately they might end up trying to get him with attempted murder at that point.

|

6/13/2019 4:52 AM

It's one thing if you catch a thief and use lethal force while they are retreating.

But when a threat re-engages with a weapon, you have every right to use any means necessary to end that threat so long as you don't do so in a way that puts the safety of others at risk. You NEVER turn your back on a threat attacking you with a weapon, EVER.

I honestly cannot believe how many people are defending this shitbag. Especially considering the kid's father was being attacked.

|

A wise man once said nothing

6/13/2019 4:56 AM

Dont bring a hammer to a ramp fight

|

6/13/2019 5:11 AM

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 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 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 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.

At no point have you taken the evidence I provided and proved it to be wrong. You just keep introducing different theories without debunking mine. At this point we're just pissing in to the wind. I understand what you're talking about, it's just not what I was talking about in my original post and that's what I'm trying to get you to understand. Go ahead and respond with another theory to show your superior intellectual abilities. I'll be busy washing the piss off my hands.

|

6/13/2019 5:13 AM

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 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 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.

Agree entirely. So many people play a hypothetical game when it comes to situations of violence. Realistically you have no idea what you’d do unless you’re in the situation. If someone swung a hammer at my father I’d feel any act of violence is justified, and I’m a sensi-snowflake.

|

6/13/2019 5:26 AM

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.

|

6/13/2019 5:31 AM

aFACEdismembered wrote:

I'm not trying to argue with you. Once the fight starts or you get hit with the first Tyson punch to the face those odds change. That's why Dad stopped fighting. He got hit with a fucking hammer. Son, on the other hand, still had good odds and he was rewarded with his quick decision making. Element of surprise. You can't surprise a professional boxer in a square ring who shows up knowing he's going to fight. A criminal with a hammer in a parking lot? Clearly, he didn't show up expecting a fight.

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 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 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.

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.

|

Take it to the limit, one more time!

6/13/2019 5:34 AM

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 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.

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.

|

6/13/2019 6:01 AM

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 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, 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.

And thats the problem, just let it go. Fuck the criminals. Dont steal.shit, you wont get hurt or killed. Fuck him maybe he will learn or find another bike to steal and someone will put a bullet in his head. Yea. Let it Go. Lol, why so he can see how it is to steal stuff from people. Fuck him.

|

6/13/2019 6:08 AM

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 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 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 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.

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.

|

6/13/2019 7:25 AM
Edited Date/Time: 6/13/2019 7:55 AM

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 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 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. 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.

Simplest things I can say is you’re conflating odds and possible outcomes. 2 possible outcomes does not mean 50% odds. Also, in a situation of limited information it may be rational to assign odds of 50% but given that your information is limited you may be radically mistaken. You are not distinguishing between actual odds and what can be known about the odds. And the odds do not change when things start happening. When Mike Tyson lands a punch, the prediction made by the odds is being played out. Your reasoning is difficult to address because the errors embedded in it are numerous and, I will admit, somewhat subtle in some cases. The main point is that you had said repeatedly (in various ways) that when there are two possible outcomes each is equally probable, and that is not only false, but obviously false. I'm now done with this - for real (I know, I said that before I thought about it a bit more and edited my post!).

|

Current rides: 2016 KTM 250SXF, 2017 KTM 350SXF