Mixing up your taser with your handgun

[Anomalocaris]

Name some of the plenty

1. A taser feels nothing like a gun even to a panicked mind, And tasers purposely made not to look like a gun.

2. The police have protocols to avoid this very scenario. Because this has happened before (thou extremely rarely)

3. She 26-year veteran, not some fresh recruit, There is every indication she has dealt with high-stress incidents without this level of panic.

4.Nothing in the video shows the level of panic anywhere near high enough to override both her training her experience and the protocols that exist to avoid this very scenario. 

I may have a moral objection to the way the police operate. But incompetent idiots they are not.

This is not a card.  It is an integral part of my assessment why people would insist something to not be an accident when there is no evidence whatsoever for it not being an accidents, and the strongest evidence that can be imagined under this circumstance for it being an accident.

Yes, it is. And as I pointed out above it simply isn't believable that it was an accident and the evidence of it being so is not strong in the least.

Yes, it is not that likely, which is why it is not observed to happen more often.   But just a little reflection shows it can not be overwhelmingly unlikely, as a result, it’s observed occurrences do not strongly suggest people intentionally trying to make it happen.

None of this follows. Actual instances of this happening are different from people lying about it to cover their ass.

1.  By what objective standard do you determine two things are sufficiently unlike that there is no reasonable probability of their being confused?      For that matter how do you compute this probability of any two things being confused in general, much less by a specific person?  

2. Protocol is neither here nor there.  Obviously protocol failed

3. What is the indication?  How do you know what level of panic the 26 years veteran has, or should have? What is the level of panic that would preclude accidents?  Does mistake require panic?    Are no mistakes made when people are not panicked?  

4. Again, do you have to be in a panic (by whatever definition or measure) to make a mistake or have an accident? Trained responders can have very high stress levels without changing their tone or voice,  so how do you measure panic with certainty from the body cam?

You pointed out it is unbelieve TO YOU, for whatever reason.   I pointed out it is not only entirely believable to me, but the it is Indeed the only explanation supported by any evidence so far, so the only one that can be believed.

[The Architect Of Fate]

1.  By what objective standard do you determine two things are sufficiently unlike that there is no reasonable probability of their being confused?      For that matter how do you compute this probability of any two things being confused in general, much less by a specific person?  

Considering its only 15 times in the whole history of the US and of those only one incident even comes close to this one. That seems improbable. And consider the two things in question feel look and are specifically placed on an officer's belt to avoid the two objects being confused, And the specific person in question is likely both trained in that protocol and trained with both objects.

2. Protocol is neither here nor there.  Obviously, protocol failed

Nope, it's relevant because it was designed to avoid this outcome and you don't just get to dismiss that as a failure.

3. What is the indication?  How do you know what level of panic the 26 years veteran has, or should have? What is the level of panic that would preclude accidents?  Does mistake require panic?    Are no mistakes made when people are not panicked?

Lol yeah, I bet people who constantly with stress are in no way able to handle it after 26 years? As for your rest of the tedious questions. If it wasn't panic then it was incompetence and the answer to both remains the same. There no indication she was incompetent. 

4. Again, do you have to be in a panic (by whatever definition or measure) to make a mistake or have an accident? Trained responders can have very high-stress levels without changing their tone or voice,  so how do you measure panic with certainty from the body cam?

To once again answer the same tedious question see above. I never mentioned her voice I said there was an indication of panic that would cause her to make that mistake.

You pointed out it is unbelievable TO YOU, for whatever reason.  

Yes and more than backed up why. 

 I pointed out it is not only entirely believable to me, but the it is Indeed the only explanation supported by any evidence so far, so the only one that can be believed.

Yup and you failed to defend your position and no evidence so far favors your opinion over mine. So both can be believed equally.

[Anomalocaris]

1.  By what objective standard do you determine two things are sufficiently unlike that there is no reasonable probability of their being confused?      For that matter how do you compute this probability of any two things being confused in general, much less by a specific person?  

Considering its only 15 times in the whole history of the US and of those only one incident even comes close to this one. That seems improbable. And consider the two things in question feel look and are specifically placed on an officer's belt to avoid the two objects being confused, And the specific person in question is likely both trained in that protocol and trained with both objects.

2. Protocol is neither here nor there.  Obviously, protocol failed

Nope, it's relevant because it was designed to avoid this outcome and you don't just get to dismiss that as a failure.

3. What is the indication?  How do you know what level of panic the 26 years veteran has, or should have? What is the level of panic that would preclude accidents?  Does mistake require panic?    Are no mistakes made when people are not panicked?

Lol yeah, I bet people who constantly with stress are in no way able to handle it after 26 years? As for your rest of the tedious questions. If it wasn't panic then it was incompetence and the answer to both remains the same. There no indication she was incompetent. 

4. Again, do you have to be in a panic (by whatever definition or measure) to make a mistake or have an accident? Trained responders can have very high-stress levels without changing their tone or voice,  so how do you measure panic with certainty from the body cam?

To once again answer the same tedious question see above. I never mentioned her voice I said there was an indication of panic that would cause her to make that mistake.

You pointed out it is unbelievable TO YOU, for whatever reason.  

Yes and more than backed up why. 

 I pointed out it is not only entirely believable to me, but the it is Indeed the only explanation supported by any evidence so far, so the only one that can be believed.

Yup and you failed to defend your position and no evidence so far favors your opinion over mine. So both can be believed equally.

 
You make 4 mistakes:

1. you assert the fact that measures were taken to prevent accidents means no accidents of the type meant to be prevented can happen,  if that were true awful lot of plane actual crashes would be impossible and inexplicable. 

2. You assert mechanism to deal with stress, once developed to a degree that allows one to function over a period of rime, guarantees permanent and certain immunity to similar stresses forever afterwards,   If that were true no one who has a pilot with perfect record for 25 years can have an accident due to his own fault on the 26th year

3. You assert If an event is know to have only happened once or a few times, that mean when it happened it must have been made to happen on purpose.   Creationists would love you. 

4  You think 1, 2, and 3 constitute “back up”




But I suspect those were not mistakes, just expendienrv positions to take to get you to where your agenda demand you go.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You make 3 mistakes:

Nope 

1. you think the fact that measures were taken to prevent accidents means no accidents of the type meant to be prevented can happen,

I didn't say it never happens in fact I pointed out it's happened 15 times in the US. I said it was highly improbable and the fact measures exist specifically to prevent it means it's even less likely to have occurred. So this isn't a mistake on my part it's you inventing positions for me.

2. You think mechanism to deal with stress, once developed to a degree that allows one to function over a period of time, guarantees permanent and certain immunity to similar stresses forever afterward,

I never said that. I said a 26-year veteran would be used to stressful situations and thus far less likely to make a stress-induced error. So this isn't a mistake on my part it's you inventing positions for me.

3.  You think asserting 1 and 2 constitute “back up”

You think asserting I said things that I didn't and calling it MY mistakes

But I suspect those were not mistakes, just expedient positions to take to get you to where your agenda demand you go.

You right those were not mistakes they were positions you invented for me, And now your inventing nefarious "agendas" for me.

[Anomalocaris]

You make 3 mistakes:

Nope 

1. you think the fact that measures were taken to prevent accidents means no accidents of the type meant to be prevented can happen,

I didn't say it never happens in fact I point out its 15 times in the US. I said it was highly improbable and the fact measures exist specifically to prevent it means it's even less likely to have occurred. So this isn't a mistake on my part it's you inventing positions for me.

2. You think mechanism to deal with stress, once developed to a degree that allows one to function over a period of rime, guarantees permanent and certain immunity to similar stresses forever afterwards,

I never said that. I said a 26-year veteran would be used to stressful situations and thus far less likely to make a stress-induced error. So this isn't a mistake on my part it's you inventing positions for me.

3.  You think asserting 1 and 2 constitute “back up”

You think asserting I said things that I didn't and calling my "mistakes"

But I suspect those were not mistakes, just expedient positions to take to get you to where your agenda demand you go.

You right those were not mistakes they were things you invented as positions I hold. And now your inventing nefarious "agendas" for me.

Riiiiiiiiight. 

 Given the datum that taser and gun have only ever been (known to have been ) mistaken one for the other 15 times before, presumably due to all causes, explain how, exactly, it follows that the next time it happened a cause by design can be asserted to be more probable than cause by accident?

Was 14 of those 15 times demonstrably by design?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Riiiiiiiiight.  If taser and gun have only ever been mistaken one for the other 15 times, explain how exactly does it follow that the next time it happened it must be more likely ( much more, if we catch your drift) to be by design than by accident?

 

Easy if it occurs again (assuming it ever occurs again) then it's just as likely or even less likely to be an accident. That seems pretty self-explanatory. Not sure what the point of this comment was 

Was 14 of those 15 times demonstrably by design?

None of the others were by design as far as has been demonstrated. But none of the others as I understand it had failsafes against that very scenario as unlikely to occur as it was.

[Anomalocaris]

Riiiiiiiiight.  If taser and gun have only ever been mistaken one for the other 15 times, explain how exactly does it follow that the next time it happened it must be more likely ( much more, if we catch your drift) to be by design than by accident?

 

Easy if it occurs again (assuming it ever occurs again) then it's just as likely or even less likely to be an accident. That seems pretty self-explanatory. Not sure what the point of this comment was 

Was 14 of those 15 times demonstrably by design?

None of the others were by design as far as has been demonstrated. But none of the others as I understand it had failsafes against that very scenario as unlikely to occur as it was.

‘Easy” and “Seems pretty self explanatory” do not qualify as “explain how exactly it follows”.

Not only does it not qualify as an explanation, it is also wrong

Fundamentally, The probability of an event happening at all encompasses all possible causes, including design, accident, as well as all others.     Whether an individual event is more likely to result from one cause rather than another cause depends on the relative probability of each cause, not the total probability of the occurance of the event.    

The fact that only 15 events occurred out of a totel or however many cops-hours where both guns and tasers were carried just says shooting off one when the other is called for is quite an unlikely event.   It says nothing about whether, when it occurs, it was more likely to have been by design or accident.   To address that requires you to look at the ratio of occurance of design to that of accident amongst the 15

That’s why I asked you if 14 out of 15 were caused by design.    You said no, not one of the 15 was by design.  So the basis for estimating the odds of it being by design:  0 out of 15.  The basis for,estimating the odds of it being caused by factors other than design:  15 out of 15

That would say before evidence of Potter’s actual reason for her action can be gained, the expected probability of her action being unintentional is overwhelmingly greater than that of her actions being intentional.

[The Architect Of Fate]

‘Easy” and “Seems pretty self-explanatory” do not qualify as “explain how exactly it follows”.

Not only does it not qualify as an explanation, it is also wrong

Actually, they do as long as you don't exclude the rest of what I wrote as you have.

Fundamentally, The probability of an event happening at all encompasses all possible causes, including design, accident, as well as all others.     Whether an individual event is more likely to result from one cause rather than another cause depends on the relative probability of each cause, not the total probability of the occurrence of the event.    

Nope, the only factor we need is either Accident or Design unless you can think up an alternative. And failsafes can render accidents less likely so even by your own rules my argument holds up. 

The fact that only 15 events occurred out of a total or however many cops-hours where both guns and tasers were carried just says shooting off one when the other is called for is quite an unlikely event.   It says nothing about whether, when it occurs, it was more likely to have been by design or accident.   To address that requires you to look at the ratio of occurrence of design to that of accident amongst the 15

Until you consider failsafes rendering Accidents less likely as I have pointed out over and over,

That’s why I asked you if 14 out of 15 were caused by design.    You said no, not one of the 15 was by design.  So the basis for estimating the odds of it being by design:  0 out of 15.  The basis for,estimating the odds of it being caused by factors other than design:  15 out of 15

I said I believed the others were accidents because there was nothing to make accidents less likely. The fact failsafes existed makes an accident less likely in Potters case.

That would say before evidence of Potter’s actual reason for her action can be gained, the expected probability of her action being unintentional is overwhelmingly greater than that of her actions being intentional.

Not even close as again you clearly didn't factor IN WHY I can accept the others were accidents.


So you ignored my actual point 

---

You make 4 mistakes:

Again nope 

1. you assert the fact that measures were taken to prevent accidents means no accidents of the type meant to be prevented can happen,  if that were true awful lot of plane actual crashes would be impossible and inexplicable. 

My point was that failsafe makes the likelihood of it being an accident. Not that accidents never happen. Why do you keep straw-manning me?

2. You assert mechanism to deal with stress, once developed to a degree that allows one to function over a period of time, guarantees permanent and certain immunity to similar stresses forever afterward,   If that were true no one who has a pilot with a perfect record for 25 years can have an accident due to his own fault on the 26th year

I said that a 26-year vet would be less likely to make a stress-related mistake again. You had time to edit this but didn't remove the strawmen in it.

3. You assert If an event is known to have only happened once or a few times, that means when it happened it must have been made to happen on purpose.   Creationists would love you. 

I said that the event has only occurred 15 times in US history And that after failsafes were put in place the likelihood of it being an accident like those other instances is less likely, And no creationists would love you as both enjoy making strawmen to knockdown.

4  You think 1, 2, and 3 constitute “back up”

You think 1,2.3 are my mistakes. They are not.

But I suspect those were not mistakes, just expedient positions to take to get you to where your agenda demand you go.

And again inventing "agenda's "I apparently have 

[Anomalocaris]

Two can play at that game.

The occurrences of known intention misuse had been 0.    The occurrences of known unintentional misuse had been 15.    Fail safe can work or not.   If it works, it lowers the odds implied by 15.  If it does not, the odds implied by the 15 stays.   But work or not, it ain’t changing the odds implied by the 0.      So no fail safe can make it less likely for the next mistaken discharge be to be unintentional than intentional.   

Your turn.

[onlinebiker]

Anom --- arguing with that twit is an exercise in futility...


Life is better with him on ignore...