According to a 2021 survey, 6% of Americans believe they could beat a bear in hand-to-hand combat. 8% think they could take on a gorilla. Fully 17% imagine they’d be equal to a chimpanzee.
People who think they could fight a large animal are delusional.
A chimp can break your bones just playing. A gorilla can remove both your arms at once. A bear... even a brown bear is deadly. A grizzly can swipe your head right off.
Unrelated to the main premise, but this optimistic lack of awareness is had by some non-athletes who declare that serious athletic competitions should be had between men and women. When you don't know, you don't know.
Steve “We vastly overestimate the likelihood of racial prejudice and underestimate social, economic and mental health factors that are more relevant.”
I don’t think the issue is whether Penny was justified. He clearly was not in using a potentially lethal chokehold. It was reckless. Ergo involuntary manslaughter charges justified, but not murder.
The issue is turning the issue into a racial one when there is no evidence that it played a role other than the raw identity of Penny and Neely. When people do that they just can’t see straight and are blinded to what really matters. The left turns Penny into a murderer and the right turns him into a victim.
"The issue is turning the issue into a racial one when there is no evidence that it played a role other than the raw identity of Penny and Neely."
Yeah, I think one leads to the other. People don't think (or even try to think) about the realities and the stressors of that situation. They imagine that if they were in that situation, they'd have handled everything with perfect equanimity.
And that makes it easier to presume that because Penny *didn't* handle the situation perfectly he must have been motivated by racism.
I'm going to disagree with you on that. I am less inclined to call it reckless than you. The carotid hold was used for years as a more humane method of subduing someone than a beatdown. The police quit using it because of the "why don't you just..." from people who think they should be able to subdue a chimpanzee. In the Marine Corps that choke was a part of our training, and we used it on each other. True, the training was about killing people, but we trained it without killing each other.
I'm going to plead ignorance here. But I don't need the expertise because I am not the decision-maker. Neither is the NYC DA. The only question before the DA was probable cause, and the existence of a prima facie case. And even that will get tested either before a grand jury or in a preliminary hearing.
Penny will get a trial. And he will get a defense where all these points will be made. The right wing has provided him with a multimillion-dollar defense fund, so he will get the best experts money can buy to make the points you just made. A jury will decide who is right.
But I stand by the charging decision. The guy is dead, Dave. And he knew that these chokeholds can be lethal.
I'm going to put a link that shows a police officer shooting a man to keep him from getting close. Don't watch it if you don't want to see that. I give a description. Only people who think they can fight a chimp think that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous.
The officer is female (yes, it matters). If a police officer loses a fight with an unarmed perp, s/he is now armed with the officer's gun. She perceived real danger in allowing him to come within hand-to-hand combat range. Her perception was probably correct. She shot the man. Other officers were asking if the guy was armed with a knife or gun. She thought she was in danger without seeing a weapon.
Did she have a Taser? Could she have beat him down with a baton? Could she have kept space until backup arrived? I don't know the answer to any of that. One of the people commenting in the video is a police officer. If you watched the video, would you have shot the man? Can you beat up a chimpanzee?
I present this as a case of a sworn police officer perceiving enough of a threat to shoot an unarmed man center mass twice. Perception of threat was an issue in the death of Jordan Neely. It matters.
"Only people who think they can fight a chimp think that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous."
100%. Very few people are even able to imagine how it would feel to be in a situation where you genuinely think your life is at risk. Or even just that the person you're facing seriously intends to hurt you. So they imagine they'd be as level headed as they feel when they're sitting behind a computer judging somebody else who was in fight or flight mode.
As with Penny, if you choose to take action you have to be willing to face the consequences. I don't believe for a second that he meant to kill Neely, but he did. And that has consequences. Same with the officer. If you choose to join the police you're putting yourself in harm's way. You have to be ready to deal with the consequences of your decisions in those situations.
But it's so naive to argue that nobody should have felt threatened unless Neely had started physically attacking people. Or that in the heat of the moment, mistakes aren't almost guaranteed to be made. That's why everything should be done to prevent getting to the heat of the moment.
People who think they could fight a large animal are delusional.
A chimp can break your bones just playing. A gorilla can remove both your arms at once. A bear... even a brown bear is deadly. A grizzly can swipe your head right off.
"People who think they could fight a large animal are delusional."
Insanely so. The sheer ignorance of the physical differential is staggering.
Unrelated to the main premise, but this optimistic lack of awareness is had by some non-athletes who declare that serious athletic competitions should be had between men and women. When you don't know, you don't know.
“We’re incredibly bad, collectively, at focusing on the relevant aspects of a problem.”
Yes. In everything.
Steve “We vastly overestimate the likelihood of racial prejudice and underestimate social, economic and mental health factors that are more relevant.”
I don’t think the issue is whether Penny was justified. He clearly was not in using a potentially lethal chokehold. It was reckless. Ergo involuntary manslaughter charges justified, but not murder.
The issue is turning the issue into a racial one when there is no evidence that it played a role other than the raw identity of Penny and Neely. When people do that they just can’t see straight and are blinded to what really matters. The left turns Penny into a murderer and the right turns him into a victim.
Here we go again.
"The issue is turning the issue into a racial one when there is no evidence that it played a role other than the raw identity of Penny and Neely."
Yeah, I think one leads to the other. People don't think (or even try to think) about the realities and the stressors of that situation. They imagine that if they were in that situation, they'd have handled everything with perfect equanimity.
And that makes it easier to presume that because Penny *didn't* handle the situation perfectly he must have been motivated by racism.
"𝘐 𝘥𝘰𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘬 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘦𝘯𝘯𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥. 𝘏𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘱𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘭𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘬𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴."
I'm going to disagree with you on that. I am less inclined to call it reckless than you. The carotid hold was used for years as a more humane method of subduing someone than a beatdown. The police quit using it because of the "why don't you just..." from people who think they should be able to subdue a chimpanzee. In the Marine Corps that choke was a part of our training, and we used it on each other. True, the training was about killing people, but we trained it without killing each other.
I'm going to plead ignorance here. But I don't need the expertise because I am not the decision-maker. Neither is the NYC DA. The only question before the DA was probable cause, and the existence of a prima facie case. And even that will get tested either before a grand jury or in a preliminary hearing.
Penny will get a trial. And he will get a defense where all these points will be made. The right wing has provided him with a multimillion-dollar defense fund, so he will get the best experts money can buy to make the points you just made. A jury will decide who is right.
But I stand by the charging decision. The guy is dead, Dave. And he knew that these chokeholds can be lethal.
I'm not trying to argue the case, just the word reckless.
Thankfully, the issue of guilt or innocence is not up to the blogosphere.....for now.
We can be grateful, at least, that NYC prosecutors with their second degree manslaughter charges, got it about right.
"𝘔𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵. 𝘌𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘩𝘶𝘮𝘢𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘰, 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘦𝘴."
Exactly!
I'm going to put a link that shows a police officer shooting a man to keep him from getting close. Don't watch it if you don't want to see that. I give a description. Only people who think they can fight a chimp think that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous.
The officer is female (yes, it matters). If a police officer loses a fight with an unarmed perp, s/he is now armed with the officer's gun. She perceived real danger in allowing him to come within hand-to-hand combat range. Her perception was probably correct. She shot the man. Other officers were asking if the guy was armed with a knife or gun. She thought she was in danger without seeing a weapon.
Did she have a Taser? Could she have beat him down with a baton? Could she have kept space until backup arrived? I don't know the answer to any of that. One of the people commenting in the video is a police officer. If you watched the video, would you have shot the man? Can you beat up a chimpanzee?
https://www.facebook.com/Americanvoicesthedailycaller/posts/203887902464509/
I present this as a case of a sworn police officer perceiving enough of a threat to shoot an unarmed man center mass twice. Perception of threat was an issue in the death of Jordan Neely. It matters.
"Only people who think they can fight a chimp think that unarmed is an indication of not dangerous."
100%. Very few people are even able to imagine how it would feel to be in a situation where you genuinely think your life is at risk. Or even just that the person you're facing seriously intends to hurt you. So they imagine they'd be as level headed as they feel when they're sitting behind a computer judging somebody else who was in fight or flight mode.
As with Penny, if you choose to take action you have to be willing to face the consequences. I don't believe for a second that he meant to kill Neely, but he did. And that has consequences. Same with the officer. If you choose to join the police you're putting yourself in harm's way. You have to be ready to deal with the consequences of your decisions in those situations.
But it's so naive to argue that nobody should have felt threatened unless Neely had started physically attacking people. Or that in the heat of the moment, mistakes aren't almost guaranteed to be made. That's why everything should be done to prevent getting to the heat of the moment.
"𝐓𝐡𝐚𝐭'𝐬 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐬𝐡𝐨𝐮𝐥𝐝 𝐛𝐞 𝐝𝐨𝐧𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐠𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐞𝐚𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐦𝐨𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭."
Words to live by.