Patterico's Pontifications


Another Isolated Incident

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:17 pm

Eastern China:

Six farmers were killed in eastern China Sunday when the hut they were sheltering in during a storm was struck by lightning, state media reported.

Another farmer in the hut was injured and taken to hospital, the Xinhua news agency quoted local officials in Anhui province as saying.

Six from one lightning strike. And they were indoors. Just when you think you have taken enough precautions, you learn you haven’t. Time to be even more careful.

Because, you know, we’re looking at an accumulating pile of bodies here.

This post is part of an ongoing series. Explanation here.

17 Responses to “Another Isolated Incident”

  1. Thank you for your consciousness raising on this issue. Many many of the Barack Obama’s relatives are very much at risk of dying this way. Zzzzzzzzt! What a nightmare. Barack Obama is our president and we love him. We should take up a collection I think to help his relatives so he doesn’t have to worry.

    happyfeet (6b707a)

  2. Patterico – Thank you for this important series. One body is certainly too many never mind a pile! America and the world really need to work together on changing the weather to eliminate the dangers of killer lightning strikes going forward. Like your series on deporting criminal illegal aliens this does a lot to raise awareness of the issue and for that I thank you.

    daleyrocks (718861)

  3. How can we wait a single moment? We need to put together a video regarding this threat, win a Nobel Prize, and see if we can get all nations in harness to eliminate this danger to civilization.

    Eric Blair (a88004)

  4. The cops in China are using a lightning bolt weapon during no knock raids at incorrect addresses?

    I could not care less what happens if the cops find the drugs, bad guys, weapons etc.
    But preemptively deploying the dreaded lightning bolt weapon seems a little presumptive

    SteveG (97b6b9)

  5. Patterico, I think you’re demonstrating an important point with your series: “rare” events actually occur frequently in large populations. While there’s a nearly 0% chance that I’ll get struck by lightning this week, your posts show that there’s a nearly 100% chance that someone somewhere will be struck this week. While no-knock raids might only rarely go bad, with enough such raids you will, indeed, see the “bodies start to accumulate”. It’s an interesting statistical point; which percentage is more important to the debate. However, you’re no more right than Balko here — just talking past each other. 

    PS- first blog comment in 10 yrs, so please excuse me if I’m rusty.       

    SP (c2c452)

  6. I’m sure there are problems with no-knock warrants…

    But I would love to see the number of problems set against the total number. I’ll bet money the % is single-digits.

    Scott Jacobs (d027b8)

  7. […] I don’t mean if you commit the “one unpardonable sin” that you get hit by lightning and die. Those lightning strikes are a series of isolated incidents having nothing to do with anything. The “one unpardonable […]

    A Nobody Layman Sermonizes « Truth Before Dishonor (fb05f5)

  8. and so far the Clouds that are responsible for managing the lightening have not sentenced the survivor to death or tried to run a cover up.

    quasimodo (4af144)

  9. It’s highly common to find a nude body lying on the ground with their arms outstretched like a cross. In fact, it happens all the time,” he said.*

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  10. I’ll bet money the % is single-digits.

    I’ll bet the number is a fraction of a tenth of a percent.

    Still something that should be prosecuted, but it can’t be eliminated.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  11. The witticism of the comparison aside, I do see at least two major distinctions between lightning strikes and wrong-door raids:

    Lightning strike statistics (considered globally) represent a strongly stationary process. Their distribution in time is fairly constant, regardless of the time period considered. For example, lightning struck somewhere on the planet approximately as frequently last century as it did this century.

    Wrong-door raid statistics do not represent a stationary process. Their frequency of occurrence has been rising dramatically over time.

    Lightning strikes are not avoidable by human intervention. That is, on average, lightning will likely strike somewhere on the planet with some reasonably estimable global frequency, regardless of human intervention. Short of intervention that would make the current AGW “cures” look like child’s play, humans are not going to slow down the frequency of lightning strikes. We can’t control weather to a sufficient degree to make that possible.

    Wrong-door raids are largely avoidable by relatively minor human intervention. The simple human act by the responsible state actors, of double checking to be sure to have correct and current address (and other) information before initiating a raid would significantly diminish the frequency with which wrong-door raids occur.

    Occasional Reader (626b94)

  12. You can be more careful about lightning too, OC.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  13. “Their frequency of occurrence has been rising dramatically over time.”

    I think this is not the case at all. We do not have the police of the 1960s. We have a much more professional police force. But we also don’t have the citizens of the 1960s. Everyone has a cell phone with a video camera built in. The internet allows us to share stories rapidly. That’s why we are so much better equipped to deal with police abuses.

    no knock raids and para military police forces are not my preference at all, but the idea that we are in a dark age of evil police just because you hear about it more is absurd. By that logic, the Americas didn’t exist until 1492.

    Juan (bd4b30)

  14. Can it be that a white horse is not a horse?
    Advocate: It can.
    Objector: How?
    Advocate: “Horse” is that by means of which one names the shape. “White” is that by means of which one names the color. What names the color is not what names the shape. Hence, I say that a white horse is not a horse.
    Objector: If there are white horses, one cannot say that there are no horses. If one cannot say that there are no horses, doesn’t that mean that there are horses? For there to be white horses is for there to be horses. How could it be that the white ones are not horses?
    Advocate: If one wants a horse, that extends to a yellow or black horse. But if one wants a white horse, that does not extend to a yellow or black horse. Suppose that a white horse were a horse. Then what one wants [in the two cases] would be the same. If what one wants were the same, then a white [horse] would not differ from a horse. If what one wants does not differ, then how is it that a yellow or black horse is sometimes acceptable and sometimes unacceptable? It is clear that acceptable and unacceptable are mutually contrary. Hence, yellow and black horses are the same [in that, if there are yellow or black horses], one can respond that there are horses, but one cannot respond that there are white horses. Thus, it is evident that a white horse is not a horse.

    nk (ce533b)

  15. Ok, we get it, you support cops 100% no matter what happens, and if a few innocents get blown away in the process, then eggs and omelletes and all that. You discredit yourself with each repetition in this ridiculous series. Lightning is a natural occurrence not subject to human control. SWAT raids could (and should, in the case of petty non-violent drug infractions) be ended tomorrow. Pretending that deaths due to both are comparable, or comparably inevitable, is moronic. Putting the public at risk for (often, perhaps usually) no good reason is not a “matter of perspective” to me. You’re becoming a crank on this subject, harping away on a single issue ad nauseam, and risk driving away long-time readers like me.

    MTGlass (cc84d4)

  16. Cough*cough*bullsh*t*cough

    From your first sentence, it was abundantly clear that you had either not read the stated intent, or had substituted your own. No reasonable person could arrive at the conclusions you drew in that first sentence. Aggressive douchebaggery.

    JD (b82a9e)

  17. MTGlass, indeed your comment is in bad faith – you’ve put words in Patterico’s mouth that are not merely not what he’s said but are intentional lies about his points of view.

    SPQR (26be8b)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2478 secs.