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

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...

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.

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...

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.

MPJC wrote:

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

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

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

TeamGreen wrote:

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

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

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...

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.

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...

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?

FortyHat wrote:

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

blockhead17 wrote:

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

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

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...

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?

blockhead17 wrote:

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

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

lostboy819 wrote:

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

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...

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.

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...

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

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...

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.

MPJC wrote:

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

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

aFACEdismembered wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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...

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

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...

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.

keepoffgrass wrote:

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

MPJC wrote:

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

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

aFACEdismembered wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Excaliburbmx wrote:

[img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2019/06/13/354178/s1200_1419D3BD_232A_4E37_9892_BB35134BF03F.jpg[/img]

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...

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