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

Related:
Create New Tag

6/13/2019 8:32 AM

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.

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 about your reaction.

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.

|

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

6/13/2019 8:35 AM

Let the bike go, have a friend start a $15k go fund me campaign, buy a 2019 YZ250F, and take pops on vacation with the leftover money.

|

6/13/2019 8:57 AM

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.

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 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 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.

I’m sure my reaction would have been the same. I’m sure emotion would play into what I did. I would not second guess myself and not lose one nights sleep over it. The thief set the stage for what happened. It’s totally on him. The rolled the dice and lost.

|

6/13/2019 9:23 AM

GrapeApe wrote:

Let the bike go, have a friend start a $15k go fund me campaign, buy a 2019 YZ250F, and take pops on vacation with the leftover money.

Don't forget to save some money to fix the threads for the subframe mount tab on the frame

|

6/13/2019 9:48 AM

GrapeApe wrote:

Let the bike go, have a friend start a $15k go fund me campaign, buy a 2019 YZ250F, and take pops on vacation with the leftover money.

Insurance will cover the loss. No need for a gofund me for a hobby . Buy insurance .

|

6/13/2019 10:08 AM

I don't wish death on anyone. BUT, don't try stealing someones stuff....situation avoided.

Note: Darwin at work

|

6/13/2019 10:13 AM

Those Harbor Freight ramps hit hard

|

6/13/2019 10:14 AM

This reminds me, I need a ramp that doesn't fold in half.

|

6/13/2019 10:38 AM

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.

MPJC wrote:

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.

We’re of the same mind on this one.

|

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

6/13/2019 10:41 AM

Here's an interesting poll question now that we've heard both sides of this case;

If this case did end up in court with charges levied against the bike owner: ( speculating ) aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Would you rather;

Trial by Judge?

Trial by Jury?

|

[Moto Creed-O: Take the High-Road.....Kick His Ass and Fuck His Chick

6/13/2019 12:37 PM

whyZ wrote:

Here's an interesting poll question now that we've heard both sides of this case;

If this case did end up in court with charges levied against the bike owner: ( speculating ) aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Would you rather;

Trial by Judge?

Trial by Jury?

I'd say jury for sure. With a judge there is a good chance of getting a crazy one. With a jury you need a whole room of crazy to get sentenced.

|

6/13/2019 12:52 PM

FortyHat wrote:

This reminds me, I need a ramp that doesn't fold in half.

Me too. I pinch my damn fingers in my foldy all the time.

|

6/13/2019 1:16 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?

Why would that be interesting? Why don't you just make up some more stupid shit.

|

Ed Johnson

6/13/2019 1:23 PM

whyZ wrote:

Here's an interesting poll question now that we've heard both sides of this case;

If this case did end up in court with charges levied against the bike owner: ( speculating ) aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Would you rather;

Trial by Judge?

Trial by Jury?

No matter what the charge against me would be, if I didn't commit the crime, I'd want to go before a judge. If I did commit it, I'd want to go before a jury. There are enough stupid people that I have serious doubts about a jury's ability to come to a correct and rational decision.

|

6/13/2019 1:25 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?

lostboy819 wrote:

Why would that be interesting? Why don't you just make up some more stupid shit.

I'm thinking he just needed a ride to his roofing job

|

6/13/2019 1:32 PM

The thief broke rule number 1 in life...
Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit. Anything that happens afterwards no matter what it is can be traced back to breaking rule number 1.

|

6/13/2019 1:35 PM

Park Boys wrote:

The thief broke rule number 1 in life...
Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit. Anything that happens afterwards no matter what it is can be traced back to breaking rule number 1.

Bingo.

|

6/13/2019 1:46 PM

The world could use some more men like that kid.

|

Those dudes on Vital take shit WAY too seriously. I think they think they are signed on to a "let's cure cancer" message board

6/13/2019 4:35 PM

It’s not morally right to try to kill the thief. I know it’s wrong but that’s how some people have to get food in their plates. That’s why you should get a gun and pull it out in hopes to scare him off. Take advantage of Concealed Carry in the USA

|

6/13/2019 4:44 PM

toostroke wrote:

It’s not morally right to try to kill the thief. I know it’s wrong but that’s how some people have to get food in their plates. That’s why you should get a gun and pull it out in hopes to scare him off. Take advantage of Concealed Carry in the USA

You dont pull a gun to scare someone. If its serious enough to clear leather you better mean business.

|

6/13/2019 4:55 PM

toostroke wrote:

It’s not morally right to try to kill the thief. I know it’s wrong but that’s how some people have to get food in their plates. That’s why you should get a gun and pull it out in hopes to scare him off. Take advantage of Concealed Carry in the USA

Hoseclamp wrote:

You dont pull a gun to scare someone. If its serious enough to clear leather you better mean business.

Absolutely, and you don't shoot to injure.

|

6/13/2019 5:09 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.


|

6/13/2019 6:14 PM

My dad and I were once run off the road while a bunch tried to steal our trailer with 2 current model MX bikes.
They messed with the wrong people, I already had my Alpinestars on. Long story short - 3 little thugs in hospital. I actually had a dart hanging from my back that I didn’t notice until after.
In court they are the ones that went away.
I’m no tough guy but I saw red, especially as my dad was involved.

|

6/13/2019 6:18 PM

Hoseclamp wrote:

You dont pull a gun to scare someone. If its serious enough to clear leather you better mean business.

Nope just because you pull a gun out doesn’t mean you have to shoot it means you’re not fucking around

|

6/13/2019 6:20 PM

Gworm wrote:

Absolutely, and you don't shoot to injure.

That’s the dumbest thing I heard on vital yet. You don’t have to shoot to kill you can easily shoot his leg if you feel your life is in danger. call 911 and make sure he stays alive by applying pressure to the wound

|

6/13/2019 6:24 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/13/2019 6:24 PM

Besides if you think your bike is worth more than some thief’s life hang your boots up lock the bike in your garage and find a different sport

|

6/13/2019 6:25 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/13/2019 6:26 PM

Hoseclamp wrote:

You dont pull a gun to scare someone. If its serious enough to clear leather you better mean business.

Gworm wrote:

Absolutely, and you don't shoot to injure.

toostroke wrote:

That’s the dumbest thing I heard on vital yet. You don’t have to shoot to kill you can easily shoot his leg if you feel your life is in danger. call 911 and make sure he stays alive by applying pressure to the wound

Give up mate. You can't talk sense with gun enthusiasts who are looking for any excuse to discharge their weapon.

|

6/13/2019 6:32 PM

Park Boys wrote:

The thief broke rule number 1 in life...
Don’t start no shit, won’t be no shit. Anything that happens afterwards no matter what it is can be traced back to breaking rule number 1.

mxb2 wrote:

Bingo.

Yep.

Don’t enter the game.

|

6/13/2019 6:56 PM
Edited Date/Time: 6/13/2019 6:57 PM

keepoffgrass wrote:

Give up mate. You can't talk sense with gun enthusiasts who are looking for any excuse to discharge their weapon.

I’m a gun enthusiast myself but I think they’re retarded for the whole shoot to kill or kill someone for trying to steal type of thing

|

6/13/2019 7:04 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.

Excaliburbmx wrote:

The only thing I noticed were the tits.

|

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