A terroristic problem
 

This is a really easy calculation for anyone who can think, and another example of when there is a clear right and wrong answer to a social problem. 8 bombs in two weeks, 4 lethal and 4 not, 50 people killed. A guy you think has a bomb is headed for a crowded subway and won't stop for police. Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption must be that the role of the govt/police is to help the rest of us live in a free and open society. The simplest way to make sure that there is no terrorist bomb in the UK or US or whereever, is to nuke it first all by ourselves. I can 100 percent guarantee that there will be no more deaths at the hands of the terrorist. That's right 100 percent guarantee.

Your question is flawed and designed to produce an answer. The flaw is the assumption you proffer.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption must be that the role of the govt/police is to help the rest of us live in a free and open society. The simplest way to make sure that there is no terrorist bomb in the UK or US or whereever, is to nuke it first all by ourselves. I can 100 percent guarantee that there will be no more deaths at the hands of the terrorist. That's right 100 percent guarantee.

Your question is flawed and designed to produce an answer. The flaw is the assumption you proffer.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the assumption is seriously debatable, but your counterexample is way off point. You don't save more lives by killing everyone. He didn't differentiate between terrorist deaths and other deaths, he just asserted that we should try to minimize overall deaths.

Now, what you should be arguing, and what I might agree with, is that it's much worse for a person to be killed by his government than by a terrorist. But that's a whole different kettle of worms. There's a clearly correct answer to the question as posed.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

This seems like a bad question, imagine its your son or daughter, then ask again. How many people are you prepared to see die to protect your childrens lives?

Mack

Re: A terroristic problem
 

Leaving the different kettle of fish aside, we will probably be pretty close to each other on that one.

My counter example is to show that this will minimize the number of deaths by terrorists, which is what the police action is trying to do. It is deliberating taking the preventative police measures question to the extreme, to try to make a point.

The example may be off-point. But I am glad you got the gist.

Of course there is a reasonable answer to the question as posed - there usually are reasonable answers to most questions. But bad questions should be questioned as one is then tempted to draw conclusions, and I think this is a bad question. If the assumptions are bad then answers are usually bad and conclusions from the answers are bad.

The question tries to minimize the gravity of the incident by making an emotional loaded survey question.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

Your sample size is too small.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]

My counter example is to show that this will minimize the number of deaths by terrorists, which is what the police action is trying to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, in this question the police action is trying to minimize the expected number of deaths regardless of cause. That's a big difference, and really the heart of the problem as stated.

[ QUOTE ]

The question tries to minimize the gravity of the incident by making an emotional loaded survey question.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I think it's quite the opposite. BruceZ is removing the emotion to allow for an analytical view of a loaded topic. It's easy to look at this type of scenario emotionally with phrases like "you can't put a price on a human life" but from a policy/decision making standpoint, you have to look at things dispassionately.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

I agree. If you were 100% sure that someone was going to commit a terrorist act, you would arrest them. If you were 1% sure you might not. That is at the heart of needing evidence and such to secure search warrants and arrest subjects.

In this situation, what level or police scrutiny are you willing to accept.

Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
This is a really easy calculation for anyone who can think, and another example of when there is a clear right and wrong answer to a social problem. 8 bombs in two weeks, 4 lethal and 4 not, 50 people killed. A guy you think has a bomb is headed for a crowded subway and won't stop for police. Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

We begin anew... [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

1. The terrorist threat is not a social problem. I have no idea by what kind of meaning you describe it as a social problem.

2. Even by your analysis, the subject NEVER presents us with a "clear right or wrong" choice. Perhaps you should have consulted some real (and intelligent) law enforcement persons, who have been actually involved in similar situations, with similra dilemmas, before putting up such a "poll".

3. Finally, your description of those who agree with your position as people "who can think" is insulting, since it insinuates that those who disagree with it cannot think! Right back at ya, then : Your position is simplistic to the point of inanity.

Oh and for the record? On the basis of the description of events in London that I have, I called it a Correct Kill by the Metro Police. The Brazilian guy, if the descriptions are accurate, behaved insanely stupidly.

But your "poll" is still flawed and biased.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

I agree that the question/poll of flawed, bottom line though is the police did the right thing in the UK situation.

For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

Granted, the question as posed is somewhat oversimplified, but it nonetheless illustrates an important point. And actually, the bare bones manner in which it is presented makes that point stand out all the more plainly.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

1 bomb ~= 5 lives

Shooting = 1 life

1/5 ~= 20%

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
8 bombs in two weeks, 4 lethal and 4 not, 50 people killed. A guy you think has a bomb is headed for a crowded subway and won't stop for police. Assume your goal is to save the most lives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruce,

Are we to assume that a bomb will, on average, kill 50/8 people? Because that cannot be inferred from the statistics given.

I cannot tell wheather you were trying to post a math/logic puzzle or make the point that it is misguided to apply the simple, clean-cut methods of puzzle solving to real life problems.

gm

Re: A terroristic problem
 

That's the way I voted, as the problem was designed to produce that answer, but there is a problem with the poll. And that is the problem of treating social problems as math problems. This is what I believe AC Player was getting at. Taking a strictly mathematical approach leads to destroying the village in order to save it.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

The general problem to using mathematics to solve societal problems usually comes down to the assumptions you use. The argument then becomes the assumptions to choose. That is really the advantage of formulating questions mathematically or rigorously (properly done it forces you to look at the assumptions). But once the assumptions are documented, we have to critically analyze not the solution to the problem posed (which to me is irrelevant) but the assumptions that were made in posing the problem.

Properly done this thread should be about the objectives of the police action in foiling suspected bomb wielding suspects, and in particular whether the minimize function on the lives lost is appropriate.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you could possibly shoot out both arms before he detonates, this would be a reasnoble option. However, the almost certain chance that you don't succeed makes the option far too risky to even attempt.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you could possibly shoot out both arms before he detonates, this would be a reasnoble option. However, the almost certain chance that you don't succeed makes the option far too risky to even attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well it depends on the circumstance I guess. Are we talking about a guy in a suspiciously heavy jacket about to enter a subway station? I thought so. So his hand isn't on the button and the risk of immediate detonation may be negligible.

Risk of Ruin
 

I hate to tell you this but your simplistic approach to the issue, as well as the original poster's grasp of it, indicate a profound misunderstaning of a key gamblinc concept, namely the Risk of Ruin.

If you cannot realize that once your are ruined (dead), you cannot come back and play another day (live again), then you have understood nothing about RoR.



Your life cannot be divided into percentages. Getting killed is irreversible. This cannot be "repeated a hundred times".

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the summer.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the winter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not realize that if we don't question police actions such as this, properly determine that they acted correctly and if not then enact change, that we seriously run the risk of it becoming ok for the police to shoot first, ask questions later when someone is

RUNNING AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing when IT REALLY IS WINTER.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you could possibly shoot out both arms before he detonates, this would be a reasnoble option. However, the almost certain chance that you don't succeed makes the option far too risky to even attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree this is very difficult/impossible to do accurately. The thing that bothers me is he had done basically nothing, they had zero reason to suspect him, they were following him with guns wearing baseball caps and tee-shirts, people panic. If its okay for trained police to mess up, surely its okay for a scared guy going about his business to make one.

I'm prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt, but not prepared to give them the power to be judge jury and executioner without being accountable. Mistakes are understandable, saying 'whoops', or 'it'll happen again' is not good enough.

Mack

I was OK with the killing at first, too
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the summer.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if he was not running away from the POLICE ?

What if he was running away from baseball-hat T-shirt wearing tough-looking DUDES who did not identify themselves properly (or loud enough) as the POLICE ?

(By the way, the acoustics in the underground are terrible!..)

I am absolutely in favor of aggressive preventive measures by the police --- provided they are carried out professionally and efficiently. Would you want your son to have a mugger threatening him and, when he makes a run for it, to shoot him dead ? If the POLICE appeared to the Brazilian as muggers, they were the ones that started the tragic events rolling, i.e. the suspect trying to run away. I was in favor of the killing at first, but now I cannot see a young man being so stupid as to be running away from the POLICE (a) after the terrorist attack when he would know the POLICE are edgy, and (b) for no reason (the Brazilian was a law-abiding fellow).

The POLICE should make sure that, when they take off the civilian appearance, it is blatantly obvious that they are THE POLICE, goddamnit!.. How difficult can that be?

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the summer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me if I am incorrect, but the original post concerned a hypothetical situation, did it not? I am not posting about the specific instance of the Brazilian man killed in London.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the summer.

[/ QUOTE ]

His family have said they were told he was wearing a light jeans jacket and not heavy clothing. Regardless, this is London, not Dallas; it's not exactly boiling here, and the fleece jacket he was supposed to have been wearing is not exactly a bearskin. There's also the fact that the police should have tried to get an idea of who lived in the block of flats they were staking out before treating every person emerging from it as a suicide bomber; and the fact that three men had him pinned to the ground before they pumped eight bullets into his head.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
His family have said they were told he was wearing a light jeans jacket and not heavy clothing. Regardless, this is London, not Dallas; it's not exactly boiling here, and the fleece jacket he was supposed to have been wearing is not exactly a bearskin. There's also the fact that the police should have tried to get an idea of who lived in the block of flats they were staking out before treating every person emerging from it as a suicide bomber; and the fact that three men had him pinned to the ground before they pumped eight bullets into his head.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm glad I'm not the only one who disagrees that it's okay to shoot anyone you have the faintest suspicion of being a terrorist, and then to expect no questions. We can trust and support the police, but they must still be accountable.

Mack

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

Here we go:

"Jean Charles de Menezes, the Brazilian shot dead in the head, was not wearing a heavy jacket that might have concealed a bomb, and did not jump the ticket barrier when challenged by armed plainclothes police, his cousin said yesterday.

Speaking at a press conference after a meeting with the Metropolitan police, Vivien Figueiredo, 22, said that the first reports of how her 27-year-old cousin had come to be killed in mistake for a suicide bomber on Friday at Stockwell tube station were wrong.

"He used a travel card," she said. "He had no bulky jacket, he was wearing a jeans jacket. But even if he was wearing a bulky jacket that wouldn't be an excuse to kill him."

Brazilian did not wear bulky jacket

This wouldn't exactly be surprising. Virtually everything else the police initially claimed turned out to be untrue.

Re: For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

almost 50% of you would shoot some guy in the head if you were 20% sure that he was as terrorist?
thats [censored] up.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
This wouldn't exactly be surprising. Virtually everything else the police initially claimed turned out to be untrue.

[/ QUOTE ]

The former Chief Constable of Greater Manchester Police was on the radio this morning, he implied that the police always put a spin on press releases, basically they avoid admission of blame to keep down litigation costs, his words not mine. Hence 'the man shot by police at Aldgate tube station this morning was directly linked with ongoing enquiries into last weeks terrorist attacks'.

Mack

Re: For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

Could you please point out the point the OP illustrates with the question?

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
The poll is flawed because it presents your only option as shooting the guy in the head. If you have a gun, and have a shot at him, and you have the skill to shoot him in the head at will, you could (a) shoot him in the leg to keep him from making it to his target, and/or (b) shoot him in the arm/hand to keep him from detonating. Thus if there's any doubt, there's no reason to take the person's life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you shoot him in the legs, he can still detonate the bomb. The only place to shoot him to guarantee that he won't be able to detonate the bomb is in the head.

That said, I do not support shooting people unless the police are 100% sure that they are a threat.

Re: For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

[ QUOTE ]
Could you please point out the point the OP illustrates with the question?

[/ QUOTE ]

That mathematical principles have some value and should not be completely ignored in such scenarios.

Re: Your question is flawed and biased
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you guys not realize he RAN AWAY FROM THE POLICE in a subway station wearing heavy clothing in the summer.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are countless explanations for this behavior, only one of which is that he is carrying a bomb that he intends to use right then and there.

-ptmusic

Re: A terroristic problem
 

If the purpose of this is to make a life or death decision based on an "easy calculation" (how absurd is that) to save the most lives, one needs to consider the INFINITE increase from 0 deaths to 1 death (you shoot and kill him). The increase from 1 death to 5 or more is not NEARLY as big an increase.

Therefore, you better be pretty damn certain that you will be saving lives before you make that infinite increase from 0 to 1.

-ptmusic

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
If the purpose of this is to make a life or death decision based on an "easy calculation" (how absurd is that) to save the most lives, one needs to consider the INFINITE increase from 0 deaths to 1 death (you shoot and kill him). The increase from 1 death to 5 or more is not NEARLY as big an increase.

Therefore, you better be pretty damn certain that you will be saving lives before you make that infinite increase from 0 to 1.

[/ QUOTE ]

But that is not an infinite increase, numerically speaking; it is an increase of exactly 1. And a jump in deaths from 1 to 6 would be a numerical increase of exactly 5.

An increase from 1 to 6, in comparison with an increase from 0 to 1, is five times as large an increase in actual numbers. And I think we're comparing saving actual numbers of lives, not abstract percentages, aren't we ;-) ?

Re: A terroristic problem
 

MMMMMM,

I don't particularly care if having a policy like this is proven to "save lives". Giving the police the power to shoot a suspected suicide bomber is quite dangerous, and would result in a lot of innocent deaths.

Re: A terroristic problem
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't particularly care if having a policy like this is proven to "save lives". Giving the police the power to shoot a suspected suicide bomber is quite dangerous, and would result in a lot of innocent deaths.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that there are concerns and considerations which go beyond the raw numbers.

Re: For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

Do you tbink they have values other than as a systematic way of documenting assumptions and then testing the assumptions? Which is exactly what I tried to do with the question, in pointing out its inherent flaw.

The field here came up with essentially two opposite answers to the question. So the answer is not obvious but is clearly subjective.

It seems to me that the science of human nature has not evolved to the point where we can come up with a mathematical representation or come up with a unique correct answer. Perhaps it will in the future, I hope not.

Re: For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

I think the question has an objective answer, given only the assumptions or premises as posed in the question (one of the premises is to assume that the goal is to save lives).

Of course, the assumptions given are quite limited, and the real world scenario is more complicated than that.

Re: For ACPplayer and Cyrus
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Could you please point out the point the OP illustrates with the question?

[/ QUOTE ]
That mathematical principles have some value and should not be completely ignored in such scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but the setup for the math in the initial question is flawed. I'd give the benefit of the doubt here based on what I know about the London shooting to the police.

The reason the math is flawed is it is really a conditional probability question that states GIVEN there is a guy not responding to police acting some what suspiciously (for whatever definition of some what suspiciously you have) THEN what is the probability he is a terrorist that is about to explode a bomb?

If the conditional part happens once a century then clearly you don't need to be so sure. If it happens 1000 times a day then you need to be very sure before you shoot to kill. The guy in question could clearly not speak english, be deaf, be listening to earbuds, be lost in his own world not paying attention, etc. So I don't think the GIVEN part is that unlikely (and the poll question doesn't give this necessary piece of information), and as a result ~20% is too low [imagine it "the circumstance" happens 1000 times with innocent people for each 5 times it happens with guilty people and that you have a 20% rate of correctly identifying people. Then the probability that this is really a terrorist given you are 20% sure it is a terrorist is only 1/201 or less than half a percent].