Another Isolated Incident
A pregnant 19-year-old who was struck by lightning in Bedford and lost her baby underscores the importance to take precautions during severe storms.
On Thursday, a woman was struck by lighting as she stood outside her car in the 1000 block of Stableway Lane, according to the Bedford Fire Department. The woman was taken to Parkland Memorial Hospital.
KRLD-AM reported that the woman was in critical condition and that she had lost her baby.
This kind of thing almost never happens!
P.S. This post is part of an ongoing series. Explanation here.
P.P.S. The immediate impetus for the post stems from this recent interview between Glenn Reynolds and Radley Balko, especially around 17:15 where Balko says journalists are starting to learn that wrong-door raids are not “isolated incidents.” But the history of seemingly dozens of posts at the Agitator blog with the title “Another Isolated Incident” makes the series timeless.
Going forward, in each of these posts I will try to include a quote from one of the Agitator.com “Another Isolated Incident” posts, in which Balko makes the point: Look! Clearly these aren’t isolated incidents because, here’s another one!
Hence the quote above: “This kind of thing almost never happens!”
Nice try, but how about “no”?
Lightning does not rely on “confidential informants” to determine where to strike.
Lightning does not have the power to knock your door down without warning, shoot you if you resist what you think is a home invasion, and put you on trial.
Thunderstorms, while severe and sometimes fatal, are subject to reasonable precautions, such as staying inside.
Police mistakes, on the other hand, are human error that currently almost completely free from any kind of real accountability, in part because cheerleaders for the war on drugs are insisting that potheads are a threat to “THE CHILDREN!!!!”
I note in passing that one threat to children who was recently put behind bars was paroled 12 years into a 50 year sentence. Wonder if that parole had anything to do with a lack of jail space? Wonder if that lack of jail space had anything to do with the war on drugs?
All analogies contain a fundamental disconnect, but this one is especially weak. If you were actually prosecuting a case you wouldn’t dare put it in front of a jury.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:25 pmThat was a pretty reasonable interview.
However, how disappointing to take up an MO like what was done at LGF in his move toward his vision of moderate “independence”. What’s the next McCain/Charles type move? Going after anti-AGWers? The over the top antics of Beck? I am not sticking around to watch this again.
Ray (3c46ca) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:28 pmIn the European civil law system, a search of a home includes an officer of the court who carries a six-foot crowbar and uses it to break the threshold before the police, who conduct the entry and search, are allowed to go in.
I like that kind of formalism.
I’m sorry, but I cannot agree that the suspicion of drugs getting flushed down the toilet justifies kicking down the door of somebody’s home without warning.
nk (b17d90) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:31 pmLightning kills about 250 people a year in the US. That’s roughly 5 a week. I’m predicting this number is going to rise. Lack of common sense among the young folks.
glenn (2d382b) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:31 pmI propose we ban lightning. And swimming pools. And lawn darts. And, Kyoto.
JD (959071) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:34 pmPatterico,
You should look into Poisson distributions.
Sunburn (5d93e3) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:37 pmJD – I denounce you !
Next thing, you’ll be wanting legislation to ban or at least severely restrict public access to Dihydrogen Monoxide ! Isn’t it bad enough that the Mayor of Los Angeles is already trying to do that ?
Alasdair (759927) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:38 pmHey, Sunburn:
You should look into not trolling websites.
Seriously, rather than playing dumb games, why not ask to post something serious? I mean, unless your goal is to play kiddie games on line.
I’m just sayin’.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:49 pmSo Sunburn writes:
First, I thought it would amusing to have this zero actually define the term, but then he would just vomit Wikipedia back. More game playing, just like the other trolls.
Then, I thought about this:
https://patterico.com/2009/08/28/obamacare-can-the-“center”-hold/#comment-546656
Perhaps Patterico will carve out some time for Poisson distributions right after Sunburn learns about…well, fractions.
You know?
Actually, the only reason the character posts is to play Keyboard Kommando.
Mike K. dissects him pretty thoroughly further down the thread. But then, again, Sunburn isn’t posting to contribute or debate. He is just aspiring to become the back end of a horse.
Eric Blair (0b61b2) — 8/28/2009 @ 5:55 pmEric – I saw a term recently, something like informationally reductive, that sunbeam reminds me of.
JD (b537f4) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:06 pmWrong door no-knocks are rare events but, unlike lightning, are unnatural and preventable. The cops and judges who set up these raids should be held liable. Prosecutors who charge home owners for protecting their own property from what is perceived as a home invasion should be neutered.
My condolences to the lightning victims.
TC (5d0ac1) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:27 pm“You should look into Poisson distributions.”
What do fish have to do with lightning or no knock raids?
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:34 pm“Wrong door no-knocks are rare events but, unlike lightning, are unnatural and preventable.”
Let me clear this up for you. I’m not posting about lightning.
I’m posting about lightning STRIKES.
Stay inside during a thunderstorm and you should be fine. You ever hear of a lightning STRIKE on someone who was inside their home?
If you have a problem with my view, I denounce you as favoring death by lightning. Do you even care about human life?
I thought not.
Patterico (ac1367) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:39 pmLightning does not rely on confidential informants to determine where to strike.
Lightning does not have the power to knock your door down without warning, shoot you if you resist what you think is a home invasion, and put you on trial.
That is brilliant.
Wrong-door raids do not involve electrical bolts from the sky.
I am brilliant as well.
Patterico (8775c3) — 8/28/2009 @ 6:42 pmLightning strikes may or may not be more likely to kill people heretics from the church of Gorebal warmening.
No knock raids are agnostic on faux religioscience matters.
I can haz genyus too.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:01 pmpeople who are heretics
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:02 pmI like how Patterico is going to have to keep on explaining that he isn’t saying no knock raids aren’t a problem… just saying this rhetorical device skews reality.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:05 pm?
Patterico (9130c0) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:06 pmI will not presume to speak for Juan, as he is quite capable of doing so himself, but it would be my guess that he meant that so long as you do this, there will be those that either do not get your point, or refuse to accept your stated intent.
JD (f303d4) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:40 pmDoes anyone have any decent stats about no-knocks?
All I have been able to find is this on Wiki:
The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond, Kentucky [1]. Raids that lead to deaths of innocents are increasingly common; since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute in Washington, DC.
If those numbers are correct, “isolated incident” seems to be a pretty good description.
kaf (525681) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:47 pmWhat percentage of all searches or no-knocks?
What percentage of no-knocks end badly (wrong address, injury, death, etc)?
Yep, I missed the connection at first, but I get it now.
It reminds me of Rush’s crusade against carrots. But that was about 15 years ago. I doubt anyone remembers, including Limbaugh.
Ag80 (b7e24c) — 8/28/2009 @ 7:47 pmthis is all very high concept. It’s one of those things where later I’ll be all ooohhhhh I totally get it. Hey. Here is a Canadian. And she’s pretty and clean and look what she has! An HQ button! Press it you know you want to.
happyfeet (6b707a) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:00 pmWith the cognitive ability of some of the Balkobots, this “Another Isolated Incident” series could turn into another “Patterico’s A Good Man” type marathon.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:00 pmIf you have a problem with my view, I denounce you as favoring death by lightning. Do you even care about human life?
Of course I don’t favor death by lightning and yes, I care a lot about human life; especially my own. I want to delay death as long as possible. Again, I state that death by cop from wrong door no knock is totally preventable and yet it still happens.
Stay inside during a thunderstorm and you should be fine.
You must be a city boy. Sometimes inside just isn’t possible. Ever stood on top of a Colorado 14er when the air is buzzing and it is only 10 am? Hikers and climbers are cognizant of weather dangers and try to be down by noon but sometimes storms brew unpredictably early.
You ever hear of a lightning STRIKE on someone who was inside their home?
As a matter of fact, I have. Injuries and deaths occur every year occur to persons inside. The rate is likely smaller than injuries and deaths by wrong door no knocks. The National Weather Service says:
* Stay OFF corded phones. You can use cellular or cordless phones
* Don’t touch electrical equipment or cords. Unplug electronic equipment before the storm arrives.
* Avoid plumbing. Do not wash your hands, take a shower or wash dishes.
* Stay away from windows and doors, and stay off porches. Do not lie on concrete floors and do not lean against concrete walls.
I read you every day and generally agree with your ideas and opinions. That said, I’m tiring of your persistent bashing of Balko. He too has some valid and cogent opinions.
Perhaps I touched a nerve with by comment on neutering.
TC (5d0ac1) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:12 pmDoes anybody here know what a poisson distribution is? Can you show me how it does not apply to lightning strikes and/or wrong address no-knock raids?
Alan Kellogg (c3aa1e) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:15 pmI’ve clicked on your other links, and nice try, but I’m still not buying what you’re selling.
Part of it is because of the emotional reaction I have to your Jon Stewart-ish “olly olly oxen free” tone here: “No, no, no, I’m not saying we shouldn’t take no-knock raids seriously, and I’m certainly not comparing them to lightning strikes, which just happen to be one of the rhetorical gold standards for freak occurences… I’m just commenting on lightning strikes in the same way my rhetorical opponent is commenting on no-knock raids. But it’s just silly to suggest I’m equating them.”
It feels shifty and squirrely. And you’re one of the GOOD guys in law enforcement. If you, as one of the good guys that I have trusted, are going to start peddling this “well, it’s not really that bad and most of them are criminals anyway and besides hey, accidents happen and no one’s perfect” line and then deny in the next breath that this is what you’re selling, then what am I supposed to think about the rest of the law enforcement world?
I’m trusting cops and prosecutors less every day as it is.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:43 pm18#
?
Comment by Patterico — 8/28/2009 @ 7:06 pm
#
I will not presume to speak for Juan, as he is quite capable of doing so himself, but it would be my guess that he meant that so long as you do this, there will be those that either do not get your point, or refuse to accept your stated intent.
Comment by JD — 8/28/2009 @ 7:40 pm
that was what I meant. Guess I played a bit too coy, though.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:45 pmYou must be a city boy. Sometimes inside just isn’t possible.
Anything is possible if you care enough.
As a matter of fact, I have. Injuries and deaths occur every year occur to persons inside.
Then when there is a storm, sit in a chair, in the center of a room, not talking on the phone, and near no electrical equipment.
In fact, also follow this when there is no storm. Because there could be, any second. Have you been reading my posts?? People are struck by lightning ALL THE TIME.
This kind of thing almost never happens.
I read you every day and generally agree with your ideas and opinions. That said, I’m tiring of your persistent bashing of Balko.
I recognize your handle. You are a fairly reliable partisan of his. Ooh, let’s try an experiment. Pretend my site has those little buttons that give thumbs up and thumbs down to comments, like Balko’s. OK, now, pretend you see this:
Fuck the police.
Admit it, you mentally were searching for the thumbs up button, weren’t you?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:46 pmPart of it is because of the emotional reaction I have to your Jon Stewart-ish “olly olly oxen free” tone here: “No, no, no, I’m not saying we shouldn’t take no-knock raids seriously, and I’m certainly not comparing them to lightning strikes, which just happen to be one of the rhetorical gold standards for freak occurences… I’m just commenting on lightning strikes in the same way my rhetorical opponent is commenting on no-knock raids. But it’s just silly to suggest I’m equating them.”
It feels shifty and squirrely. And you’re one of the GOOD guys in law enforcement. If you, as one of the good guys that I have trusted, are going to start peddling this “well, it’s not really that bad and most of them are criminals anyway and besides hey, accidents happen and no one’s perfect” line and then deny in the next breath that this is what you’re selling, then what am I supposed to think about the rest of the law enforcement world?
I’m trusting cops and prosecutors less every day as it is.
That last sentence tells me everything I need to know. More than all the rest of the comment which pretends to take me seriously etc.
Fuck the police!
Now where is that damn thumbs up button?
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:48 pmWho is Good Will,
I have always been a huge fan of your commenting. However, you have really let me down in this thread. It’s really too bad because before now, man, you were my hero.
[Everyone else: is there, like, a standard term for this kind of dissembling?]
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:50 pmShould I do one of these sudden live blogs? I sort of feel like it.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/28/2009 @ 8:54 pmOh come on, Frey. Get off your wounded high horse, the crucifix can’t take his weight.
Believe it or not, I’ve been reading you for some time now. You’re on my regular stops, along with Instapundit, Ace of Spades, Tim Blair, and occasionally PowerLine. I started reading you just before Captain Ed shut down his blog, which I still miss.
Here, let’s do your thing in reverse: Legalize Drugs!
Were you looking for the thumbs down button?
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:04 pmThis is going to end like Red State did, isn’t it? Where I got banned for being a lefty troll despite a long history of pro-gun and pro-Iraq war commentary.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:05 pmNo doubt this is “a concerned Christian conservative who voted for Obama,” right?
Hey, Axelrod! Come get your boy!
Eric Blair (a88004) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:07 pm[Everyone else: is there, like, a standard term for this kind of dissembling?]
Patterico – Usually the comments start out “I am a lifelong concerned Christian conservative.” Instead on this thread they start “I read your blog every day” or “I am a big fan of your blog.” Didn’t Herman Melville write a book about dissembling dicks like that with a whale in its title? Its name escapes me.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:12 pmHey, Eric
Try clicking on my link.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:14 pmI was too busy to comment at length earlier today, but I was concerned about the fire, and very happy to see Patterico so lively and dealing with the persistently obtuse.
I know that cops step out of line sometimes. They are human, their jobs are very hard, and sometimes there certainly are simply bad people in uniform. It happens and it should be fought against. What shouldn’t happen is some sort of effort to slime all the cops, all the DAs, and our justice system in general. It’s a frustrating justice system for everyone, because what it’s doing is nearly impossible and slow and full of emotions. But it’s what we’ve got and it has taken a lot of hard work, and it is extremely counterproductive to use the disgusting but truly rare mistakes as a slur against the entire system.
I gave up on Radley not too long ago. I still read him every couple of days, but it’s a shame he champions an honorable cause in a way that’s not so great. There really is no massive universal conspiracy among cops and DAs to cover up massive injustice. These offensive abuses Radley points out (when they turn out to be accurate, anyway), are extremes that should be dealt with severely.
It really doesn’t hurt Radley’s cause to admit it.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:25 pmUm. I have done that with some of the folks who come here spoiling for a fight. Not always a good idea.
Remember, you were the one coming out the box pretty aggressively. Sort of tips your hand.
Eric Blair (a88004) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:26 pmDaley, that one made me laugh. Thanks!
Eric Blair (a88004) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:27 pmdaley, I would suggest moby or astroturf, but you’re clearly looking for something more specific, and I’d love it if there were a term for it. I think it’s generally just mocked as ‘concerned christian conservative’ these days.
When you have to pretend to be the other side in order to win arguments, maybe… just maybe… you should change your mind. I guess that never occurs to the crazies.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:28 pmWell, tell you what Eric: click the linkie, and if you still think I’m an Axelrod plant, I’ll buy a cheeseburger.
And not a McDonald’s cheeseburger either. A really nice one, like the kind that gets a little duck meat ground into it to make it fattier.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:35 pmAck. Buy you a cheeseburger, is what I meant.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:36 pmHey! Try clickin’ on my link! I’m that Markos douchebag now!
I don’t usually fawn over bloggers in their threads, but Patterico was hilarious in mocking this Will.
Who is Good Will, your blog hasn’t been updated since the election? What does it matter if you had a blog back then? Why would I care about that? And if there was a huge astroturf effort then that has recently been picked up, I might actually expect to see fake conservative blogs that ended around the election and then were picked up again. A legit conservative would have had more to complain about in the past several months than he’s ever had before in his life.
But you just couldn’t find anything to talk about? Not that I really care. Who you are is your ideas in this thread. You don’t really exist beyond your ideas, because this is just a comment thread. Why you think you can benefit from your ‘credentials’, even if they weren’t stupid, is beyond me.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:45 pmOh, Juan, Juan, Juan….
Are you a detective? Because your powers of logical deduction are exhilarating in their…. ummmmmm…. uniqueness? Originality?
You start with two possible premises: One is that I’m an actual reader with an actual disagreement. The other is that I’m a Moby here to pull the “concerned Christian who’s voting for Obama” act.
Seeing the opportunity for confirmation bias within reach, you take my old blog that I used to to try to point out some uncovered news stories about the Obama campaign… stories that in my opinion indicated strongly our President is a crook and probably an old Communist party operative from way back… and you use this to come to the conclusion that I’m a Daily Kos operative?
Wow. That is some good squishie.
Who is Good WIll? (8b8d7e) — 8/28/2009 @ 9:53 pmHmm?
I said you can post a link to anywhere, so who cares what your link is to… it doesn’t mean you’re a conservative.
I also said it doesn’t matter if you think you’re a conservative because we’re debating with ideas, not credentials or loyalties. Your ideas don’t stand on their own, and they don’t stand better just because of your link to your blog that proves… ?
And I also said your blog is not realistic for a person living in our times and engaged. You wanted to speak out, and yet you gave up… two days before last election? That’s… just weird. Now, you clearly seem weird, so no doubt, maybe your psychology stabilized or destabilized or you met a girl or something. But your link to a blog is, in these three ways I listed, not evidence that helps your argument.
You respond by being a self impressed idiot, basically.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 10:13 pmOh, and I suspect your understand of what I said was so poor that you didn’t realize I linked my name to dailykos and sarcastically pretended I was the owner of that blog.
You see, I’m not actually. And the value of my comments here wouldn’t change if I was. That was my counterexample of you repeatedly asking us to check your link.
By the way, McDonalds has an improved burger lately. Doesn’t have duck in it (duck tastes like dog, and yes, I would know), but it’s kinda like a Carl’s Jr burger. I am a huge Mcdonald’s fan… particularly their coffee.
Juan (bd4b30) — 8/28/2009 @ 10:17 pmPolice hide behind “procedure” “policy” “officer safety” and close ranks with prosecutors behind that.
When they do that, I say “fuck the police”.
I’ve had the police in my home acting like they were going to shoot my dog. I was about to stick the taser up an officers ass and then go to work on fucking him and his partner up until the tide got turned and the third (supervisor) cop could get on me with the upper hand… after all, I’d be cool in the joint and wouldn’t do much real time in the end anyway because they were idiots.
They put me in a no win “control your dog” but “you need to sit down right now… stop…”
I said “I’m trying to put the dog outside into the fenced part of the yard not out the front door where she can get out into the street dumbshit” *underbreath* “pussy hall monitor wannabe motherfucker cop drop the officer safety catch 22 bs… Man up. You took the job… grow a pair.”
By the way, multiple (3) felony charges dismissed by the judge in preliminary hearings.
There are times *ISOLATED INCIDENT* when cops are assholes… and when… fuck them.
Obviously my experiences with the police have been mixed… checkered maybe… but I know good cops and I know mediocre cops and I’ve met shitty ones… my duty as the taxpayer who has to pay for the large settlement is to tell the mediocre and shitty cops to get the fuck off the payroll and go drive a parking enforcement golf cart at a community college ASAP.
Fuck shitty cops and those who defend them.
I have a friend who did SWAT out in UT. See, I have friends who are very good cops… and I *hate* cops as a rule…. hmmm, why do we get along…. what would Freud say?
I did some ride alongs when I’d visit before he made SWAT. I would not want him thrown to the ahem *dogs* for an intel mistake, but he knew he was in a high risk job… not just high risk officer safety, but high risk, got to get it 100% right.
I had confidence in him because he had zero tolerance for idiots within the ranks…. I did see that when he was new to SWAT that he had to conform.
In his case the Mormon influence called for a blind eye to fair haired Mormon boy fuck ups.
This drove him nuts and eventually he left for another state.
Good for him.
He lost some pension money, but stood on principle.
Most cops opt for the pension (chickenshit pussies) rather than cross the blue line (suck asses)
SteveG (97b6b9) — 8/28/2009 @ 11:11 pmAs the old line goes, I do not suffer fools gladly… double for fools in cop uniforms that hide behind their badges and “officer safety”
No one should.
That old tired dodge of “it’s a dangerous job…” is great, but some guys and women on the job are still union douchebag assholes and are the ones who make the job more dangerous anyway
The Judge had dogs…. I guess if she’d been bit by a Rottweiler as a child I’d be looking at 5 years instead of stopping at a light next to child prodigy cop whiz kid and giving him the thumbs up as he acts like he’s got blinders on, looks only forward, and makes a quick left turn…
SteveG (97b6b9) — 8/28/2009 @ 11:27 pmCop kid needs a job that involves a broom… not the up the butt haitian broom either
Alan Kellogg on 8/28/2009 @ 8:15 pm:
Yes I do know. I can offer one point about its application, off the top of the head.
For reasonable non-statistician’s explanation, refer to the Wikipedia entry on the Poisson distribution.
In particular, note the introductory paragraph:
Very generally (and not entirely without exception), if the number of such raids is increasing with time, then they are not randomly distributed in time in the Poisson sense. Lightning strikes are randomly distributed, or are at least are more randomly distributed in the Poisson sense, than the raids under discussion.
I defer to more experienced statisticians here to explain further, the applicability or inapplicability of the Poisson distribution to the events under discussion here.
Occasional Reader (e6222d) — 8/29/2009 @ 11:03 amYa know what would be a good idea. Use the same technique of these “another isolated incident” posts to respond to a blogger who points out crimes committed by illegal immigrants. He takes these horrible crimes and makes it seem like they are not isolated incidents or that illegals commit more violent crimes than legal immigrants or citizens.
Something about stones and glass houses comes to mind.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 4:56 pmYa know what would be a good idea. Use the same technique of these “another isolated incident” posts to respond to a blogger who points out crimes committed by illegal immigrants. He takes these horrible crimes and makes it seem like they are not isolated incidents or that illegals commit more violent crimes than legal immigrants or citizens.
1. I do not in those posts suggest that illegals commit more violent crimes than legal immigrants or citizens.
2. I explicitly said at the outset of the series that I was reporting these crimes in reaction to an L.A. Times columnist’s use of anecotes to humanize illegal immigrants:
Other than that, you make a great point.
If I tried to make it sound like illegals commit crimes at higher rates, and tried to prove it with a bunch of anecdotal evidence, I would deserve to be slapped down for that. But that’s not what I am doing.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:06 pmThreeSheets,
You realize the Deport the Criminals First series started because of media’s predisposition to portray illegal immigrants in a favorable and sympathetic light, don’t you? Like this series, one of the points is to expose disingenuousness.
DRJ (3f5471) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:07 pmPatterico and DRJ,
I apologize if I missed the post where you explained the rationale behind the Deport the Criminals First series. I just clicked on the archives link for the series, and I don’t see any mention of that reasoning. What I found was this…
Regular readers know that it’s been a pet issue of mine for quite some time to Deport the Criminals First. My point is simple: regardless of how you feel about illegal immigration, everyone can agree that the least desirable illegals — and thus the ones we should be deporting first — are the criminals
Now that doesn’t say your point is toe expose media disingenousness, it says your point is that the US should be deporting the least desirable illegals.
Based on my review of the posts tagged Deport the Criminals First you never mention that your reason is anything but the above. That may have been your intention, but re-reading those posts it is very difficult, if not impossible, to discern some other intention than the one you explicitly stated in more than one post.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:32 pmBy the way, another point undercutting your stated rationale is that all the stories you cited come from mainstream media outlets, so I’m not sure how you cherry pick that the MSM is trying to make illegals look good and then point to MSM stories making them look bad.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:33 pmSorry, not to keep harping, but you left out the first part of the quote from the first post.
[“Deport the Criminals First” is a new recurring feature on this blog, highlighting crimes committed by illegal immigrants — with a special focus on repeat offenders. I argue that, instead of arresting illegal immigrants who work hard for a living, we should use our limited immigration enforcement resources to target illegal immigrants who commit crimes in this country — especially violent crimes.]
As regular readers know, I have repeatedly argued that our federal government should devote all its ICE agents (at least those not working on border enforcement) to the task of identifying and deporting those illegal aliens who commit crimes while in this country. In my view, it is outrageous that we would use a single ICE agent to arrest someone working hard for a living, while countless thousands of illegals sit in county jails and state prisons — their illegal immigrant status unknown, waiting to be released onto the streets once their sentences are completed.
While later you say you want to dehumanize them in rebuttal to Lopez, that seems like a strategy to achieve your stated policy above and not that the whole point was to point out media disingenuousness. Your point, it seems, was to use stories of outrageous conduct by illegal immigrants to advance your position that the US should use its resources to identify criminal illegal immigrants.
You, like Balko, used specific isolated examples to make a larger point in changing a policy.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:51 pmNow that doesn’t say your point is toe expose media disingenousness, it says your point is that the US should be deporting the least desirable illegals.
That is the point. DRJ said ONE of the points was to expose media disingenuousness, but I consider that minor.
The reason I used anecdotal evidence was specifically a reaction to Steve Lopez’s decision to use anecdotal evidence to humanize illegals.
I never implied or suggested that illegals commit more crimes than non-illegals. My point — that we should deport the least desirable illegals first, and that criminals are the least desirable — stands regardless of the statistics. Just as Balko’s arguments against wrong-door raids stand, even if they’re rare.
My one and only contention here is that it is misleading to suggest that wrong-door raids are commonplace, by using anecdotal evidence. Use of a title like “Another Isolated Incident” implies that the sheer volume of incidents cited on Balko’s blog shows that they are not statistically rare. The point of my series here is to show that his examples prove no such thing.
But I don’t try to argue that there is a tremendous number of crimes committed by illegals. Whether the number is great or small, we should follow the policy of deporting them first. If the number is small, then it should be even easier to do.
It’s a nice try, ThreeSheets, but your criticism falls flat.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:53 pmWhile later you say you want to dehumanize them in rebuttal to Lopez, that seems like a strategy to achieve your stated policy above and not that the whole point was to point out media disingenuousness.
Nobody ever fucking said that that was the “whole point.” Strawman. Using strawmen is lazy and (when you do it knowingly, which you may not have) dishonest. Don’t do it.
You, like Balko, used specific isolated examples to make a larger point in changing a policy.
And there’s nothing wrong with either of us doing so. Also, as I said, telling every story he can is effective rhetorically.
The ONLY thing I object to is the implication — which flows from his “Another Isolated Incident” title — that the number of wrong-door raids is statistically significant. Now, as I have said about a gazillion times, you can argue that even if they are statistically rare, even one such raid is ONE TOO MANY!!!!1!! If that’s your argument then fine. Just understand that repeated examples presented on a blog does not establish a lack of rarity, statistically speaking.
Please be more careful to address my actual arguments and do not distort them again.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/29/2009 @ 5:57 pm“While later you say you want to dehumanize them in rebuttal to Lopez”
Three Sheets – Patterico said he wanted to “humanize” rather than “dehumanize” the crimes committed by the illegal aliens, another probably idadvertant distortion in your speedreading of the archives.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/29/2009 @ 6:10 pmYou acknowledged that you and Balko are both doing the same thing. You are using specific examples to support your arguments for policy change. The only quarrel you have is that you believe he is making it out to be commonplace, but stated that even if it is rare, his argument (like yours) would still hold. That doesn’t mean that what he thinks.
I have to confess that I haven’t read anything Balko has written in about three or four years so I certainly am not in the best position to argue if your take is what he intended. However, I did just watch the video you linked to and he doesn’t say it is “commonplace” in the video. All he says is that beat reporters might look around and see it happened 3 or 4 times in 18 months and have their assumption or police claim that it never happens be challenged. It seemed to me he was simply saying that reporters are becoming more aware that it happens more than they would think, but that doesn’t necessarily imply statistic significance.
I don’t think it is any more misleading for him to use anecdotal evidence to support his argument for policy change than it was yours to use anecdotal evidence to support your argument. How is it misleading for him to list wrong door after wrong door, but not for you to list criminal after criminal? You are both using repeated examples to advance your agenda.
And please, spare me the strawman outrage unless you point out a specific sentence where Balko said that the number of wrong-door raids is statistically significant. Your entire series is based on a strawman. Further, while not a strawman, how do you know that he doesn’t understand that using repeated examples does not establish a lack of rarity, statistically speaking?
Maybe he is doing exactly what you did. EXACTLY. Using repeated examples to support your policy argument, whether statistically signficant or not. I just don’t see how it is “misleading” for him to use repeated examples, but not you.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 6:54 pmYou acknowledged that you and Balko are both doing the same thing.
Do you understand that he has a recurring series, with literally dozens of posts, each titled “Another Isolated Incident”?
If you don’t understand that, then you didn’t click all the links.
What is your theory as to why he is doing that? My theory is that he is responding to the argument by police that these incidents are “isolated” by cataloguing each one. And I believe his commenters are taking the series as evidence that there is a statistical significance to his series of examples.
I don’t believe I have claimed that Balko is arguing that his repeated examples show a statistical significance. I think it’s an implication (intended or not) that floats over the whole series. But I know only that many of his commenters seem to think wrong-door raids are commonplace, because of his many examples.
So even if he is not intending to imply the statistical fallacy, my series still illustrates that this fallacy exists, and thus contributes to a more accurate and balanced view of the issue. I don’t even have to be proving him “wrong” or “disingenuous” for my point to be valid.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/29/2009 @ 7:03 pm“Further, while not a strawman, how do you know that he doesn’t understand that using repeated examples does not establish a lack of rarity, statistically speaking?”
ThreeSheets – I’m loving your logic. Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor say one of the strongest arguments for advancing Balko’s Agenda would be to prove that botched no knock raids are statistically significant? If he could prove it, don’t you think he would?
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/29/2009 @ 7:42 pmBetcha the “no no-knock” people and the “break off the high speed chase because innocent people could die” people, are the exact same people.
They are pro-criminal people with a “reason”.
j curtis (baef6f) — 8/29/2009 @ 8:09 pmBut I know only that many of his commenters seem to think wrong-door raids are commonplace, because of his many examples.
Commenters are idiots 🙂
My theory of why he is doing that (assuming that wasn’t a rhetorical questions) is that he has an agenda to change warrant execution procedures so he uses every example he can find. However, in the video he didn’t say common place, so I don’t know if he thinks they are common place or just of such importance that even if not, the procedures should be changed. If the commenters think it is statistically significant, maybe they should be directed to the video where he says it occurs maybe 3 or 4 times in 18 months. If they think that is significant, they should be told (by Balko or you, or anyone else) how many warrants are executed over 18 months and then they can see the exact percent. Maybe you and I being in the criminal justice realm and in big cities understand just how many warrants are executed on any given day. Personally, I would find that more persuasive than linking to lightening strike stories trying to show that just because he links to a lot of stories doesn’t mean it is common.
Especially because I think the underlying issue either is or is not statistically significant regardless of the number of posts and that is where I differ from you. While I understand that your point is to show that you can link to any number of isolated incidents but that doesn’t mean they commonplace, the counter is also true. That is: linking to any number of isolated incidents doesn’t mean they aren’t commonplace. It’s a flawed methodology or logic but I don’t think it says anything about the accuracy or balance of the underlying issue, wrong-door raids.
I think what would give a more accurate and balanced view of the issue would be to simply point out how rare wrong door warrants are given the number of warrants.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 8:12 pmDaleyrocks,
Back at ya buddy with the logic love. Actually, Occam’s razor would work against you.
Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor say one of the strongest arguments for advancing Balko’s Agenda would be to prove that botched no knock raids are statistically significant?No. Occam’s Razor has nothing to do with that at all. Occam’s Razor has to do with not unnecessarily complicating things. As Patterico said in a comment above, Balko’s argument holds water regardless of the statistical significance just as his did with deporting the criminals first. He doesn’t have to prove they are statistically significant.If he could prove it, don’t you think he would? But he doesn’t have to prove that it is statistically significant (again, as Patterico said above) only that it is a problem that should be addressed, statistically speaking or not.
It also leads to the question of what is statistically significant for this issue. 75% of all warrants? 50%, 25% 10%, 2%. If I was partisan on this issue I could phrase it as how many people are we willing to let die in botched wrong-door raids each year before we do something about it? I’m not a partisan, but you get my drift.
What may be statistically significant to Balko might be that it happens 3-4 times every 18 months but they could be prevented with some simple changes. Patterico and others might disagree and say that those changes would endanger officers and we shouldn’t change it.
ThreeSheets (20cafa) — 8/29/2009 @ 8:27 pmThreeSheets – You have a problem with consistency., Patterico doesn’t. Try sticking to a single argument and things generally go better. Statistical significance is a marhenatical term of art, not a subjective judgement. Patterico’s position is immediately below:
“My one and only contention here is that it is misleading to suggest that wrong-door raids are commonplace, by using anecdotal evidence.”
Your attempts to describe his position as something else are amusing and time confusing and yes, Occams Razor would suggest that if Balko had the data to make the argument I describeb he would not hesitate to do it.
Too bad, so sad.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/29/2009 @ 9:16 pmIf the commenters think it is statistically significant, maybe they should be directed to the video where he says it occurs maybe 3 or 4 times in 18 months.
In the entire country?
I had the impression he was talking about a hypothetical example involving a single department.
I don’t think anyone knows the exact stats.
Patterico (cc3b34) — 8/29/2009 @ 9:27 pm“I had the impression he was talking about a hypothetical example involving a single department.”
Patterico – His Isolated Incidents are from all over the country I believe. Since ThreeSheets hasn’t read him in three or four years, I’m not sure he’s in a position to speak about it, but focusing on one department would be an easier task. It wouldn’t necessarily convince people it was a national issue though, as Balko was trying to do with that map he came up with for Cato.
daleyrocks (718861) — 8/29/2009 @ 9:50 pm