Mob of teens film themselves attacking and robbing disabled vet

[churchmouse]

I think you guy's have it under control now.....

 

[sb0]

You must have failed statistics. Proportionately blacks commit more crimes based on their percentage of the population. However, by pure numbers.... surely I don't need to finish the thought?

...a non-minority is most likely to a victim of another non-minority.

I never said otherwise.

The poster implied that "someone like him" was more likely to be a victim of a white person. If he is black, he is 12.4x more likely to be a victim of another black person.

Edit: Correction - Assuming we are talking about strangers, it is approximately 6x, not 12.4x.

He was talking about profiling. I'm talking about profiling. So the raw numbers are not relevant. At all.

I don't see why you all can't just have an argument without twisting everything I say. It's always like this.

 

[Tired of Lies]

huh?

I am talking strictly here in America. you are trying to equate religion to race. not going to work. a person can grow up being a Buddhist but, later grow out of it. the only person I have ever seen grow out of being one particular race or another is Michael Jackson....did someone say Aliens?

Only in America can a poor black boy grow up to be a rich white woman.

 

[sb0]

What?
Really?
Most people here know Que. Some by his posts, some personally.
Based on your posts, I'd say he makes a lot more sense.

Okay?

He still made an entirely unrealistic statement.

This statement is going to bite you in court if you are ever accused of unnecessary deadly force.

What, that I profile? You don't profile? If you're being followed down the street by males in their teens and early twenties, do you view them with the same suspicion as the 70 year old Asian woman walking the other direction?

Don't bother answering that.

You really should read and study this chart.
Yup, percentages are more for some groups, less for others.
Yet, WHITE GUYS STILL COMMIT THE MOST CRIMES.
Wait, it can't be. That's not what you said earlier.
And people are most likely to suffer an attack from someone of their OWN RACE.
Guess you forgot that part.

I never said they didn't.

You're being completely irrational. READ the conversation up to this point, and understand what I am saying.

Que here implied that he was more worried about rural white males than any other demographic. He is completely and totally mistaken if he believes this to make any sense given the statistics. He is 12.4x more likely to be murdered by a black person, assuming he is black himself.

I never said I wasn't more likely to be attacked by someone of my own race. Although I could give you a thousand reasons why that's not as simple as it seems, I won't. Once you look at stranger upon stranger homicides, the gap closes dramatically for black on white vs white on white murders. Not to mention the oh so obvious fact that perhaps, just perhaps, this might have something to do with the fact that every race will tend to spend more time around people of their own race. This is a segregated city, state, country, and world.

What I said, was that you profile INDIVIDUALS based on LIKELIHOODS, not raw numbers. Profiling based on raw numbers makes absolutely ZERO logical sense. It's completely insane, please, think about it for 5 seconds.

If people wearing red hats are 100% murderers, and people wearing blue hats are 1% murderers, but make up 99.9% of the population, thus committing more total murders, do you now profile people with blue hats, because they're more likely to murder you? Is that really what you are saying to me right now?

That is mind numbingly ridiculous. Seriously.

I like how these controversial topics roll around and ZOMG let's lock the thread. I'm open to a discussion, you're employing logical fallacies and implying that we should just drop the topic. Why?

Feel free to refute these statements:

1. Que is statistically more likely to be murdered by a black teen than an older white male.
2. Profiling makes sense when based on per capita figures, not raw numbers.

I'll be waiting, very patiently.

-

Let me also add that unlike you I'm not going to twist things to win an argument. If I may throw this in:

http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/vic_display.asp

Now of course I could cite what I posted earlier and actually make a stronger case for my initial point, but it would be dishonest.

As far as stranger on stranger murder, Que is only 6x times more likely to be murdered by a black stranger, not 12.4x as I stated earlier and will now retract.

Of course, I'm still right, just not quite as right.

-

Edit again (I need to stop hitting submit so hastily).

So I've looked into it further. Based on population percentages on top of stranger on stranger homicide.

So we have established that any random black person is 6x more likely to be murdered by another black person than by a white person.

So, how does this relate to profiling? Well, that's where percentage of population comes in. Let's assume whites are 70% and blacks are 13% of the population, and feel free to correct that.

For the sake of profiling, in order to determine the statistical likelihood of any random stranger murdering you, we multiply the 6x by the proportion of blacks to whites (5). The result is 30x.

So basically, if Que does in fact want to profile, he should know that any random black person is 30x more likely to murder him than any random white person.

Now, obviously that all goes out the window when some nut pulls out a gun and starts shooting at you. But for the purposes of who you should "watch out" for, as a black person, you should watch out for other black people.

As a white person, any random black person is only 2.5x (.5 multiplied by 5) more likely to murder you than any random white person. A massive drop.

Ironic, but there it is.

 

[patience0830]

C'mon, some of us didnt vote for either one of the douchbags, what's that make us?

Hard to understand.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Hard to understand.

Why? Because we do not like douchebags that are so huge they could cleanse a whales vajayjay

 

[Disposable Heart]

Aside from the racial stupidity this thread turned into (b/c I've personally witnessed a white group attack people too):

At what point does it become "aggravated battery"? I would surmise that the number of attackers would almost be cause for a REASONABLE expectation of a high level of violence leveled at me. Do they have to cause injury, choke me or use a weapon for it to allow the use of force against their felony? IC says that robbery (a class C felony, B class if they are using a deadly weapon or if they injure me), if they intend to rob me or take my property by threatening the use of force. Does that then construe a forcible felony under the use of force statute?

That said: So does a gang robbery like the one on the bus, under INDIANA law (really don't care about Ohio law, lived there, done that, live in Indiana and this is an Indiana focused forum), allow for the use of force, including deadly force, to prevent a forcible felony? Yes, we can scream about justice for Trayvon and racial BS, but in the end, it's the law that matters. Focusing on this threat, would the OP mentioned attack allow the use of force in Indiana?

 

[sb0]

Aside from the racial stupidity this thread turned into (b/c I've personally witnessed a white group attack people too):

Well, I guess that renders thousands upon thousands of murders and mountains of statistical data completely and totally irrelevant.

At what point does it become "aggravated battery"? I would surmise that the number of attackers would almost be cause for a REASONABLE expectation of a high level of violence leveled at me. Do they have to cause injury, choke me or use a weapon for it to allow the use of force against their felony? IC says that robbery (a class C felony, B class if they are using a deadly weapon or if they injure me), if they intend to rob me or take my property by threatening the use of force. Does that then construe a forcible felony under the use of force statute?

That said: So does a gang robbery like the one on the bus, under INDIANA law (really don't care about Ohio law, lived there, done that, live in Indiana and this is an Indiana focused forum), allow for the use of force, including deadly force, to prevent a forcible felony? Yes, we can scream about justice for Trayvon and racial BS, but in the end, it's the law that matters. Focusing on this threat, would the OP mentioned attack allow the use of force in Indiana?

Yes, absolutely.

They do not have to cause injury. This is a common misconception, I am not aware of any self defense law in any state in the US that requires injury be sustained. Most are predicated upon "reasonable belief" of imminent harm, a forcible felony, etc etc.

(a) A person is justified in using reasonable force against another person to protect the person or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person1) is justified in using deadly force; and
(2) does not have a duty to retreat;
if the person reasonably believes that that force is necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person or the commission of a forcible felony. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.

Edit - Link - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/41/3/35-41-3-2

Oh, and, the definition of "forcible felony" - http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/incode/35/41/1/35-41-1-11

Strong arm robbery easily qualifies (threat of force).

'"Forcible felony" means a felony that involves the use or threat of force against a human being, or in which there is imminent danger of bodily injury to a human being.'

 

[Manatee]

Having used the FBI Homicide tables and Wikipedia in the past, the easiest conclusion to draw is that you are not likely to be murdered in the United States. If you are, it is likely that the perp is someone you know and resulted from an argument, OR you offed yourself (suicide).

Some of the LEO's on this forum have also stated that if you are not a criminal or involved in drugs, your risk is very low. I can't verify that by the stats noted above, but anecdotally it seems to be true for my area.

 

[Que]

They should be slaughtered like dogs.

It doesn't matter how you "feel" about it, the fact of the matter is that the type of people he's describing (male, young, mostly from urban Obama voting areas, mostly black) commit the majority of crime in this country. Vastly out of proportion with their percentage of the population.

That's a fact.

You call that bigotry? I call it reality. The bigotry card is a cop out. It doesn't even mean anything anymore. Yes, I am a bigot, against criminals, and yes, I profile. Why? Because it is the logical thing to do. Your feelings have no affect on the laws of probability. None. Zero.

I'm willing to bet you profile too. Wait, I don't have to bet. You just admitted it. Your misunderstanding of the actual statistics aside, you just admitted that you do or will profile. And that's fine. Profile away. Just do it logically.

And for the record, I don't lump the entirety of any demographic group together. My best friend is a member of the #1 criminal demographic group in this country. And that's fine. But he knows as well as I do what I'm saying to you now, and he agrees 110%.

I mean, it sucks, but this is the world we live in. And you're focusing your anger in the wrong place.

And the whole thing about "Obama's sons" is a direct reference to the fact that the president stuck his nose in something he knew nothing about, and basically implied that he would consider any arbitrary black teen to be his son.

So we're mocking him, because he's an idiot for running his mouth.

You seem to miss my entire point. There is not one person who can say they exist without some form of prejudice. I know a lot of prejudice people and it's refreshing to have intelligent discussions with those who do not allow that prejudice to become embraced ignorance and closed-mindedness. In some conversations I've learned and in others, I was able to convey some semblance of knowledge and further understanding.

However, you appear to be among those who allow your bigotry to turn into hate. I understand hate derives from fear and all I'm saying is your fear -- and those like you -- do not have to spew your fear and hatred on this board. No, none of us can do anything to stop it, but what good is it doing?

As for your friend, your relationship with him doesn't qualify your statements. It's not what you say all the time, it's how you say it. To suggest someone should be "slaughtered like a dog" is ignorant and without foresight. Tell your friend that you would like to be the one to put a bat across his sons head if he committed the crime you believe warrants such a punishment. If he says he agrees with you, he's not only ignorant, but I would suggest he's also mentally challenged.

I understand the numbers and they aren't pretty. I also understand history. Some do not like me to talk about history and quickly tell me that I should forgive; they didn't own slaves; they didn't hang anyone; and they have black friends. However, in the same breath, they will say "you people are..." How can they insist on being judged as an individual, but I must accept being lumped with the criminals, just because of my complexion? Am I the only one who needs to "get over it" because the bigot card is old?

On another note, although I was upset, I knew after reading the first report that Zimmerman was innocent of the crime for which he was arrested. The kid broke the law and paid for it with his life. I could not understand the level of vitriol that was posted by many with your same mindset. What were they angry about? Maybe it was for what the President said? I don't know. After reading the report in the most recent case, I believed the guy was guilty of murder. He was not found guilty and a great deal of the posts on INGO, FB and Twitter, were about the kids being disrespectful, but almost nothing about the adult who broke the law. After all, that guy WAS one of us! A law-abiding, 2A-supporting gun owner, and he ruined himself over nothing. The lesson could be that any of us could possibly do the same thing if caught on the wrong day. I sincerely pray that does not come to pass among any of us, including you.

So, unlike the statistic you posted about black criminals, I do not happen to be one of them and my record is probably cleaner that the majority of members on this board. So, yeah, I have tired of being "them" just to suit the level of ignorance some choose to display over the internet. If you want to know me, let me introduce myself:

1. Christian
2. American
3. Man
4. Husband
5. Father
6. Son
7. Brother
8. Veteran
9. Educator
10. Friend...

It will probably take a while to get to "Black" so I won't list everything I hold more dear than the color of my skin. Who are you?

 

[sb0]

Having used the FBI Homicide tables and Wikipedia in the past, the easiest conclusion to draw is that you are not likely to be murdered in the United States. If you are, it is likely that the perp is someone you know and resulted from an argument, OR you offed yourself (suicide).

Some of the LEO's on this forum have also stated that if you are not a criminal or involved in drugs, your risk is very low. I can't verify that by the stats noted above, but anecdotally it seems to be true for my area.

Absolutely. Stranger on stranger murder is rare. Well, relatively rare.

The stats I've referenced do in fact show that. Here - Easy Access to the FBI's Supplementary Homicide Reports

This is a much better interface with which to access FBI crime stats, it allows you to drill down by your own criteria, so unlike most of the FBI tables, you can cross check any variable you'd like, such as victim/suspect relationship (family, friend, stranger).

Not relevant to the post I'm quoting but me also add that the intra-racial statistics I pointed out earlier are probably in huge part influenced by the fact that most areas are relatively segregated. That 30x number in particular is very high, but I'm willing to bet that it is in large part influenced by the fact that people are obviously disproportionately going to come in contact with people of their own race.

This fact has the opposite effect on the real meaning of inter-racial crime statistics, thus weakening my argument in one sense and bolstering it in another.

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

The thing that gets my juices stirred is bullies. Doesn't matter if it's an individual, small group or a government. .

This ^ !!! Damn their ethnicity , skip the courts and let them be an example to other idiots .

 

[sb0]

You seem to miss my entire point. There is not one person who can say they exist without some form of prejudice. I know a lot of prejudice people and it's refreshing to have intelligent discussions with those who do not allow that prejudice to become embraced ignorance and closed-mindedness. In some conversations I've learned and in others, I was able to convey some semblance of knowledge and further understanding.

However, you appear to be among those who allow your bigotry to turn into hate. I understand hate derives from fear and all I'm saying is your fear -- and those like you -- do not have to spew your fear and hatred on this board. No, none of us can do anything to stop it, but what good is it doing?

I'm not going to be confrontational here, but I take that as an insult.

You don't know my motivation, but I can assure you it is not hate. You have no reason to believe that. I have been absolutely 100% objective. I'm sorry but this screams diversionary tactic to me. I hear it a lot, and I am absolutely sick of it.

The reason I do this is simple. The media is on a crusade to overblow cases like the George Zimmerman and Michael Dunn cases in order to make things appear differently than they are. I am here to set the record straight. That's it. And I am here to tell you that for everyone's sake, you shouldn't buy into it. You shouldn't buy the idea that you should be on the lookout for rural white males because they're offing black kids left and right. Because, well, that is complete and total nonsense, and it does nothing but distract from the real issues we face.

If you want to see hate, well, I'd call a nationwide media fueled fire of racial tensions hate, most definitely.

As for your friend, your relationship with him doesn't qualify your statements. It's not what you say all the time, it's how you say it. To suggest someone should be "slaughtered like a dog" is ignorant and without foresight. Tell your friend that you would like to be the one to put a bat across his sons head if he committed the crime you believe warrants such a punishment. If he says he agrees with you, he's not only ignorant, but I would suggest he's also mentally challenged.

That's not what I was talking about. I was just talking about racial profiling when I referenced my friend.

I understand the numbers and they aren't pretty. I also understand history. Some do not like me to talk about history and quickly tell me that I should forgive; they didn't own slaves; they didn't hang anyone; and they have black friends. However, in the same breath, they will say "you people are..." How can they insist on being judged as an individual, but I must accept being lumped with the criminals, just because of my complexion? Am I the only one who needs to "get over it" because the bigot card is old?

I don't expect you to "get over" anything. I'm not in a position to tell you how to feel.

All I ask is that you don't buy into the media frenzy. I guess I'm not in a position to tell you not to do that either, but there it is.

But... the situation is what it is, and I must say, unfortunate as it is, there is no easy solution. There is absolutely nothing that can be done about racial stereotypes until the underlying factors that cause them are eradicated. Even to attempt to do so is not only an exercise in futility, but a treatment of the symptom of a problem and a total waste of time.

As far as outright bigotry, as in, every single black person is X or Y, then fine, but I believe that to be a minority opinion, and a small minority at that. Even statements or attitudes that seem to demonstrate such are often nothing more than badly articulated stereotyping.

On another note, although I was upset, I knew after reading the first report that Zimmerman was innocent of the crime for which he was arrested. The kid broke the law and paid for it with his life. I could not understand the level of vitriol that was posted by many with your same mindset. What were they angry about? Maybe it was for what the President said? I don't know. After reading the report in the most recent case, I believed the guy was guilty of murder. He was not found guilty and a great deal of the posts on INGO, FB and Twitter, were about the kids being disrespectful, but almost nothing about the adult who broke the law. After all, that guy WAS one of us! A law-abiding, 2A-supporting gun owner, and he ruined himself over nothing. The lesson could be that any of us could possibly do the same thing if caught on the wrong day. I sincerely pray that does not come to pass among any of us, including you.

Well since you asked I'll be happy to fill you in. See my earlier media comment. I am absolutely angry about that.

And yes, I'm only speaking for myself here, but I was extremely angry about what the president said. He implicitly took sides, though he knew no more than anyone about the case. He basically said that if a black kid is killed, he'll give him the benefit of the doubt, because you know, he could be his son.

A person in his position has absolutely no business making such a biased comment. It's disgraceful.

I am also angry that the life of one black kid is apparently, according to the media, worth more than twice the number of white kids murdered by blacks. Is that right? Based on my statistical extrapolation, there should have been 3 Trayvon Martin cases last year, and two of those Trayvons should have been white.

And for the record, just to point this out, GZ is... not my kind of guy. I don't care for him. I didn't care for him based on what I knew about him before the Trayvon Martin case, and I don't even care for how he handles himself to this day. He has pretty much embraced the media controversy with open arms and is trying to keep the flames going long enough to squeeze every bit of publicity out of it. It's not about him.

Edit - Oh, and let me also add that Michael Dunn, in my honest opinion, is one guilty MOFO. Not that I'm an expert on the case. However, my point remains. The Michael Dunns of the world are outnumbered by murderers that share the demographic of his victims. Ones who aren't paraded around as examples of the evil of their race in high profile media circuses.

So, unlike the statistic you posted about black criminals, I do not happen to be one of them and my record is probably cleaner that the majority of members on this board. So, yeah, I have tired of being "them" just to suit the level of ignorance some choose to display over the internet. If you want to know me, let me introduce myself:

1. Christian
2. American
3. Man
4. Husband
5. Father
6. Son
7. Brother
8. Veteran
9. Educator
10. Friend...

It will probably take a while to get to "Black" so I won't list everything I hold more dear than the color of my skin. Who are you?

Just being on INGO, a 2A supporter, yeah, that's probably enough to not be lumped into that group. It was never my intent to do so. Perhaps the poster you were responding to wasn't displaying quite the amount of um, tact, that I am able to, but I didn't read the whole conversation, I just responded to that one statement you made about rural white males.

I can be abrasive at times; I meant no disrespect, and it's nice to meet you.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Please tell us about the Michael Dunn case, I do not see even remotely similar to the Zimm case.

 

[sb0]

Please tell us about the Michael Dunn case, I do not see even remotely similar to the Zimm case.

Well there is one thread of similarity - the media handling of it. The media has consistently tried to equate the two. Which I agree is about 95% nonsense.

That's about it.

 

[Dead Duck]

Hey -

But I like my Red Hat....

 

[Bunnykid68]

Hey -

But I like my Red Hat....

It makes your duck look big

 

[Dead Duck]

It makes your duck look big

 

[Snapdragon]

It makes your duck look big

Don't most guys want their ducks to look big?