You realize that a police line is literally random selection (including the perp) right? thats kind of the point. There is no guarentee that the ‘perp’ is the actual criminal despite the officers or the witnesses opinions on the matter.
You’re right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You’re wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
they (and people like yourself) believe they do, but errors in information/how they interpret information that led to the selection of any given individual makes even the perp brought in by the police potentially random.
the ‘intent’ of the police is immaterial to the facts of how the process actually unfolds. when your high confidence witness’ produce a 12.5% error rate on a line up between 6-8 people. you are literally in the realm of a coin toss. in that study the %ages for when the witness selected a filler were worse than random.
now agreeably the police are often essentially running a drakes equation for selecting the perp. but thats still entirely reliant on the quality of the information they are using for their identification. and often the line up is run early in the investigation. where they may only have eye witness information.
and since none of that information was provided by the OP you dont get to assume anything about it.
you realize that the ‘perp’ is also essentially randomly selected right? or do you believe cops always find their guy immediately on the first attempt without ever making mistakes?
jesus you people are guillible idiots if you believe the line up selection is anything but random. ‘they had a wide long nose’ police proceed to round up people they think have wide long noses. Randomly grabbing people with long noses is still randomly grabbing people.
witness memory is notoriously bad. between the witness’ memory faults (and inaccurately describing what they saw) and the police doing what you twits are doing and ‘inferring’ (potentially) incorrect information from whats stated the ‘perp’ round up or playing other games with line up manipulation to force a choice: lines ups are essentially no better than random. oh look we only put one person with defining feature on the line cause they’re definitely our guy. jfc.
Results showed that the accuracy of the witnesses’ identifications depended on the instructions the researchers gave them. The differences between the two sets of instructions were subtle: One set implied that the witness had to choose among the suspects in the lineup, while the other set implied that the witness did not have to make a choice. The researchers then included the real “criminal” in the lineup only half the time.
You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don’t want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you’ve been terribly wrong this whole time. I can’t wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren’t real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you’re right.
No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.
The suspect, along with several “fillers” or “foils”—people of similar height, build, and complexion who may be prisoners, actors, police officers, or volunteers—stand side-by-side, both facing and in profile. There is crucial information that should be conveyed to the eyewitness prior to viewing the lineup. It is necessary to inform the eyewitness that it is possible the perpetrator is not present in the lineup.[1]
sighsuspect doesnt mean anything. the process has so many flaws in determining who a suspect is that its a useless term beyond anything other 'person cops want to pin the crime on*.
look I get the argument you morons are trying to make. it just 1) doesnt match the reality of the actual system you’re using as a basis (line ups) 2) there have been actual studies on this literal exact situation on phrasing. you can go read those and stop wasting my time with your stupidity.
What does any of that got to do with it not being random? It even says they specifically pick each one.
Lol, lmfao even.
Your argument was it’s random, and now you’re trying to use the validity of police lineups (that aren’t random) to support that? You’re an interesting one.
Because you dont actually understand what random is.
I didnt bring up police line ups that’s someone else in this thread. Im just happy to point out how those are essentially random selection as well.
My original point was that the OP was ambiguous on the selection process used for the population. thusly assuming a random selection process from the overall popullation is just as valid as assuming 1 worm farmer + 9 randoms.
Now: randomness.
Given a random population of N entities, assume you want a sample of M where M < N and you decide to filter by Y to get X sample.
X is still random despite the filtering. all you’ve done is biased the N random population towards Y. but unless you remove the initial randomness (somehow… which is almost impossible btw). this is why so much of science is predicated on collecting large datasets because we have to make sure enough of the data has the attributes we want that it’ll show up for study once we apply our faulty filtering mechanisms. and its why we spend so much effort creating better and better filters. its also why algorithm that leverage randomness are so powerful, because they match the reality of the problems being solved.
Using the line up as an example:
witness says the individual they saw had a long wide nose and a blue shirt.
reality: The detective has very different definition of what a wide/long nose is than the witness.
applying those two faulty filters to population N is still going to result in a random population because the initial candidate selection before applying those two (faulty) filters is random.
You realize I’m not reading any of that since it has NOTHING to do with your original point? Yeah?
That you’ve been provided proof that lineups are purposely selected from criteria (like being a worm farmer). You’ve completely lost track of your original point, which turns out it’s simply you can fucking read apparantly, and are now bloviating about the validity of police lineups.
You fucked up, and are now doubling and tripling down on fallacies, and just making yourself look like a fool while doing so.
Get help. Seriously, this infatuation about arguing, while presented evidence is fucking unhealthy.
You realize that a police line is literally random selection (including the perp) right? thats kind of the point. There is no guarentee that the ‘perp’ is the actual criminal despite the officers or the witnesses opinions on the matter.
You’re right to point out that the alleged perpetrator might not in fact be related to the case. You’re wrong to call at least this one person random, police doesn’t always appoints the perpetrator at random
they (and people like yourself) believe they do, but errors in information/how they interpret information that led to the selection of any given individual makes even the perp brought in by the police potentially random.
the ‘intent’ of the police is immaterial to the facts of how the process actually unfolds. when your high confidence witness’ produce a 12.5% error rate on a line up between 6-8 people. you are literally in the realm of a coin toss. in that study the %ages for when the witness selected a filler were worse than random.
now agreeably the police are often essentially running a drakes equation for selecting the perp. but thats still entirely reliant on the quality of the information they are using for their identification. and often the line up is run early in the investigation. where they may only have eye witness information.
and since none of that information was provided by the OP you dont get to assume anything about it.
That person still isn’t randomly selected, they are selected because they look similar to the suspected perp.
This person is thinking they’ll just grab anyone walking in front of the police station, that’s just wrong on every level.
“Literally a random selection except for the person not randomly selected”
Lol you have to be joking, right?
you realize that the ‘perp’ is also essentially randomly selected right? or do you believe cops always find their guy immediately on the first attempt without ever making mistakes?
jesus you people are guillible idiots if you believe the line up selection is anything but random. ‘they had a wide long nose’ police proceed to round up people they think have wide long noses. Randomly grabbing people with long noses is still randomly grabbing people.
witness memory is notoriously bad. between the witness’ memory faults (and inaccurately describing what they saw) and the police doing what you twits are doing and ‘inferring’ (potentially) incorrect information from whats stated the ‘perp’ round up or playing other games with line up manipulation to force a choice: lines ups are essentially no better than random. oh look we only put one person with defining feature on the line cause they’re definitely our guy. jfc.
Here you go: some light reading on police line ups (hilariously there is a paragraph in this article that exactly matches this post and how it influences choice) https://www.apa.org/topics/forensics-law-public-safety/eyewitness-accuracy-police-lineups
you fucking morons.
😂
You realize we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario where one person in the lineup is a worm farmer, right? I guess you don’t want to acknowledge that because it would mean admitting that you’ve been terribly wrong this whole time. I can’t wait for your next reply where you write 10 paragraphs about how worms aren’t real therefore the whole premise is wrong and you’re right.
feel free to re-read the thread as many times as it takes for you to understand where you fucked up. =)
They fucked up by responding to you.
No, the point is that one of them is actually the suspect lmfao. And guess what, if it’s not, they tell you ahead of time. You’re just wrong on every level here, and are just making yourself look foolish now.
You just aren’t all there are you?
sigh suspect doesnt mean anything. the process has so many flaws in determining who a suspect is that its a useless term beyond anything other 'person cops want to pin the crime on*.
look I get the argument you morons are trying to make. it just 1) doesnt match the reality of the actual system you’re using as a basis (line ups) 2) there have been actual studies on this literal exact situation on phrasing. you can go read those and stop wasting my time with your stupidity.
What does any of that got to do with it not being random? It even says they specifically pick each one.
Lol, lmfao even.
Your argument was it’s random, and now you’re trying to use the validity of police lineups (that aren’t random) to support that? You’re an interesting one.
Because you dont actually understand what random is.
I didnt bring up police line ups that’s someone else in this thread. Im just happy to point out how those are essentially random selection as well.
My original point was that the OP was ambiguous on the selection process used for the population. thusly assuming a random selection process from the overall popullation is just as valid as assuming 1 worm farmer + 9 randoms.
Now: randomness.
Given a random population of N entities, assume you want a sample of M where M < N and you decide to filter by Y to get X sample.
X is still random despite the filtering. all you’ve done is biased the N random population towards Y. but unless you remove the initial randomness (somehow… which is almost impossible btw). this is why so much of science is predicated on collecting large datasets because we have to make sure enough of the data has the attributes we want that it’ll show up for study once we apply our faulty filtering mechanisms. and its why we spend so much effort creating better and better filters. its also why algorithm that leverage randomness are so powerful, because they match the reality of the problems being solved.
Using the line up as an example:
applying those two faulty filters to population N is still going to result in a random population because the initial candidate selection before applying those two (faulty) filters is random.
You realize I’m not reading any of that since it has NOTHING to do with your original point? Yeah?
That you’ve been provided proof that lineups are purposely selected from criteria (like being a worm farmer). You’ve completely lost track of your original point, which turns out it’s simply you can fucking read apparantly, and are now bloviating about the validity of police lineups.
You fucked up, and are now doubling and tripling down on fallacies, and just making yourself look like a fool while doing so.
Get help. Seriously, this infatuation about arguing, while presented evidence is fucking unhealthy.
no, i havent. and in fact anyone asserting this is absolutely moronic and has no idea what they are talking about for reasons I’ve already mentioned.
im not doubling down you dunces just dont know what you’re talking about. again as I’ve stated repeatedly.
lets start over so you can understand:
you have:
you are asked:
facts:
chucklefucks: