Late last night

[ovrszd]

"The state of affairs", leaves me with some questions.

Statistically violent crime has declined and leveled off in the past 12 years.

In the same time period that violent crime has decreased many people express increasing concerns/fears/anxieties about their safety or the probability of becoming a victim. The feeling is real, but not consistent with measured reality--for some reason or another.

Dave, could it be that even though the number has leveled or declined depending on location, the criminal acts have become more violent and without reason. Which would feed paranoia??

 

[two_bit_score]

Not even close to being similar.
I don't buy the "I thought", or "I felt" he "might" be a criminal so I shot him in self defense argument. And neither should anyone else. My life should not dependent on your "feelings". Is the kid an idiot? Yes.
Was there ever any threat made? No. Yelling "freeze" is not a threat. No way around that. (At least not to anyone who isn't living in constant fear.)
So who do the heat packing want-to-be heroes whip out their iron and start shooting at (remember he's "lucky" to not get shot)? The person who shout it? (He may be a cop witnessing a crime no one else sees), or at the person the shouter is telling to freeze?
If you don't see that your life or someone else's is in danger, but have only heard words for which you DO NOT KNOW THEIR CONTEXT! and your first thought is shoot this person, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. When THE ONLY possibility that exists in you fearful scared little minds is: "It's a terrorist!!!" "Shoot them!!" you seriously need to get de-programmed. Turn off the Fear-Tube.

Your position makes about as much sense as pulling a toy gun on a cop as a 'joke'. If you did it you would run the understandable risk of getting shot.

 

[ovrszd]

John, in regards to that shooting and many other incidents. I believe the police departments and news media need to be very prompt in releasing videos or any other evidence they have leading up to the actual shooting. this might create pause in those that are looking for a reason to rebel and riot.

Sadly, over the past few months my State has not handled that very well. And I'm not very proud of some of my States residents. As I said earlier there were still some rioting, looting, etc.

In regards to this incident and the Officer's actions. His reflects are wayyyyy sharper than mine. Which more than likely ultimately saved his life.

This type of instant reaction to a threatening action is what I've referred to several times in this thread. For those that suggest restraint, I suggest you view John's attached video. Even in it's grainy state it is very frightening and clearly shows the timeline involved to live to go home or die in the street.

 

[dave1949]

In 2007, I went from driving 200 miles five days a week to less than 6000 per year total. Statistically speaking, I'll probably be OK not wearing a seat belt, but I do.

I've never been comfortable living my life based on statistical probabilities and never will.

In 32 years of interviewing victims of crime, I don't remember any who truly expected their lives would be touched by crime in the way it was.

Statistical probability of violent crime occurrence and an increasing belief that bad things will happen, or that the state of affairs is declining, are different things. Logically if the reality is that those are increasing or decreasing, people would react accordingly. You wear a seat belt because you know they save lives, statistics show that; you reacted to reality.

Whether or not you are always prepared for bad things to happen doesn't necessarily correlate to your sureness that they will. You can wear your seat belt while continuing to feel just as certain that you will never crash. If you felt more certain that you will crash, you would seek out additional protections such as air bags.

However, what you think about your changing chances of crashing--unless you have a crystal ball--is not connected to any reality beyond statistics: your age, type of driving, miles driven, where you drive, etc.

Increasingly expecting bad things to happen to you, or sensing a declining general state of affairs, does indicate you are more certain of that probability however much reality says otherwise. There is something going on there beyond being always prepared.

 

[dave1949]

Dave, could it be that even though the number has leveled or declined depending on location, the criminal acts have become more violent and without reason. Which would feed paranoia??

Could be. If crimes appear to be more random and without reason, then the sense that they can be avoided through rational thought or action would be weakened.

I think some has to do with media coverage, cell phone videos and social media becoming so pervasive helped along by the internet. We are bombarded by negative messages and emotions much more so than positives.

 

[bcp]

If you live in a town of 3000 and hear of 10 random crimes, you feel safer than someone living in a town of 30,000 and hearing of 100 random crimes. You feel like you could have had much more chance of being the victim.

Bruce

 

[TripleR]

Statistical probability of violent crime occurrence and an increasing belief that bad things will happen, or that the state of affairs is declining, are different things. Logically if the reality is that those are increasing or decreasing, people would react accordingly. You wear a seat belt because you know they save lives, statistics show that; you reacted to reality.

Whether or not you are always prepared for bad things to happen doesn't necessarily correlate to your sureness that they will. You can wear your seat belt while continuing to feel just as certain that you will never crash. If you felt more certain that you will crash, you would seek out additional protections such as air bags.

However, what you think about your changing chances of crashing--unless you have a crystal ball--is not connected to any reality beyond statistics: your age, type of driving, miles driven, where you drive, etc.

Increasingly expecting bad things to happen to you, or sensing a declining general state of affairs, does indicate you are more certain of that probability however much reality says otherwise. There is something going on there beyond being always prepared.

Dave I suspect you are a lot smarter than I as I had a heck of a time following you down that trail, but I suspect we are discussing two different things and may not necessarily disagree in substance at least in the area at least in the area of statistics, emotions, reason and logic. It's really hard reconcile all those when trying to understand human behavior.

My point was only directed at the one aspect of relying on statistics all or in part to influence my behavior or that of others.

You are, I believe, getting into emotions, causation of these emotions, interpretations of events and probabilities which guide populations or significant portions therein.

(Remainder deleted, too boring)

 

[dave1949]

Dave I suspect you are a lot smarter than I as I had a heck of a time following you down that trail, but I suspect we are discussing two different things and may not necessarily disagree in substance at least in the area at least in the area of statistics, emotions, reason and logic. It's really hard reconcile all those when trying to understand human behavior.

My point was only directed at the one aspect of relying on statistics all or in part to influence my behavior or that of others.

You are getting into emotions, causation of these emotions, interpretations of events and probabilities which guide populations or significant portions therein.

I began my formal study of human behavior in 1968 with courses in sociology, psychology, psychology, cultural anthropology, philosophy and followed that up with 30+ years of interviews, reading research administering various assessment instruments etc. and find myself scratching my head in confusion far more often than nodding my head in understanding.

If crimes appear to be more random and without reason, then the sense that they can be avoided through rational thought or action would be weakened.

You have touched on an excellent point with the exception, at least for me being seemingly minor, but vastly different, either way I believe it accounts for the dissonance between statically probability and peoples' reaction to it.

In my experience crime does not "appear" to be more random and without reason, it is. I discussed this with members of state and federal law enforcement and surprisingly some members of organized crime when it first began to, at least seem to us, to be really taking off. I'd bore you to death with an explanation/discussion.

As causation became so nebulous, how to react to, modify, understand it became all but impossible. Eyes all across TBN have glazed over if they've made it this far so I'll stop; way off topic, sorry.

Good post. I sincerely doubt I am smarter than you; I wasn't sure if I could follow myself down that trail. :laughing: I think a perception of safety or danger is relevant to the topic. How much certainty of safety or danger those people brought to the store with them, based upon their cumulative perceptions, has a lot to do with their reactions.

Interesting information that crime is more random. Something to think about. Random would mean fewer victims have a prior association with the perpetrator? Or maybe also fewer social commonalities?

I think we are talking about the same things.

The primary role of statistics I see in all of this is that they are one of the few, maybe only, means of measuring reality. Mossroad's point that our personal demographic circumstances make a huge difference in our perceptions is certainly true. The national statistics for violent crime rates are not equally applicable in all locations. We don't all share an equal reality, or localized statistics, and consequently our perceptions should not be equal either.

 

[TripleR]

The primary role of statistics I see in all of this is that they are one of the few, maybe only, means of measuring reality. Mossroad's point that our personal demographic circumstances make a huge difference in our perceptions is certainly true. The national statistics for violent crime rates are not equally applicable in all locations. We don't all share an equal reality, or localized statistics, and consequently our perceptions should not be equal either.

Herein may be our primary point of departure, I simply put little to no faith in them. Before I was involved in research studies and witnessed the development, collection and interpretation and presentation, I relied on and believed in them.

Data collection and dissemination in regards to crime, rates of recidivism and efficacy of various treatment modalities in regards to criminogenic behavior, mental health etc. is what I'm most familiar and it would take pages to delineate the problems.

Not long before I retired, my direct supervisor and I brought in an "expert" from the MSHP Criminal Records Division to give a presentation to our Officers on interpretation of their printouts and reconciliation with those from FBI and NCIS. After a lengthy presentation and lots of questions and confusion, he admitted that with the available data, he really couldn't explain it and it was a wasted day.

I've previously mentioned watching requests for data being thrown in the trash.

I just don't trust statistics or how thy are interpreted and you do, so I guess we will remain at a respectful, but unbridgeable impasse.

 

[RoyJackson]

The primary role of statistics I see in all of this is that they are one of the few, maybe only, means of measuring reality. Mossroad's point that our personal demographic circumstances make a huge difference in our perceptions is certainly true. The national statistics for violent crime rates are not equally applicable in all locations. We don't all share an equal reality, or localized statistics, and consequently our perceptions should not be equal either.

Statistics, when done properly and impartially, can indicate trends and probabilities in populations. Sampling error is always a risk which can be quantified, to a degree.
However, statistics mean very little to discrete elements (us, as individuals) of that population...in other words, the instance of crime may be trending downward, but when some a-hole has a gun in your face or a knife in his hand, statistical trends aren't going to mean much.

Whether or not you are always prepared for bad things to happen doesn't necessarily correlate to your sureness that they will.

Expectation ("sureness") of an event doesn't even come into play...I never expected to have to pull my gun...but it has happened twice since I've been carrying. Fortunately, in both instances, there was no need to use the firearm (in fact, the threat never knew the pistol was in my hand).

We can discuss statistics all you want, but if that crime hits home...as I'd written, the statistics won't mean much...other then you have now become a statistic.