(November 7, 2016 at 4:08 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:RoadRunner79 Wrote:I am skeptical about your claim of Bayesian logic. It may be able to tell you what you are more likely to see today, or given no other information (or conflicting accounts), what someone else was more likely to have seen. However it doesn't follow, that because something is more common, that it more likely occurred vs the less common option, especially when there is evidence for the latter.
How common it is, is not the point. It's what is KNOWN to be true by any normal person: cops exist, bullets and guns exist, cops shoot people sometimes, cops shoot the wrong people some times; these are facts. They are known. If there had never been a police shooting of a civilian ever, one would have a degree of plausibility for the claim a cop shot an innocent civilian even if, up to this point, only the first two things were known; since the rest of it does not contradict in any way what we know to be possible.
How do you know that these "facts" are possible? I personally have never seen a cop shoot an unarmed man (or anyone for that matter). Shouldn't you need to provide evidence for the case, you are attempting to make? Is it only what you have seen, that you consider possible?
