Adams County [Idaho] rancher shot and killed by deputies

[Tom Sawyer]

Apparently old white men do too. Do we know the color of the bull?

The article says black.

I read somewhere else that Yantis and the cops fired their weapons. The bull was also shot, but they're not sure by whom.

I'm wondering if Yantis shot the bull and the cops shot Yantis after hearing the gunshot.

Well, before the thread devolves too much into hysteria, I do feel that it's important to point out that most black bulls are killed by other black bulls and it's only the rare few that are shot by white police officers.

 

[ronburgundy]

Oh, it did have to end with a dead person?

That's a depressing thought.

No, you have zero facts to support your definitive conclusion that no one needed to die.

That makes your claim purely based on faith. But its even worse than that, because your claim is not only unsupported it is contradicted by what facts we do have.
A one ton wild and aggressive animal was an immediate threat to people's lives, including those trapped in their car who could not be extracted due to the rescuers lives being endangered by the bull. Its owner, who had a major financial self-interest in it not getting shot, showed up with a gun. Given that every relevant fact about cops and all humans says the cops are more likely to shoot another when in conflict than being kindly helped by someone, the odds are overwhelming that the owner was not offering to help by taking the Bull down himself, but rather threatening to shoot the cops if they tried to shoot the Bull. In sum, all the available facts, both about this specific incident and reality in general, favor the conclusion that many lives were threatened by the Bull, the cops lives were threatened by the owner, and so they took the owners life in direct response to the real threat he posed not only to them but the people endangered by the Bull. Thus, due to the owners actions, it is likely that someone did have to die, and far better him (since he was the cause), than either the cops or others who could have easily been killed by the Bull.
Unlike you, I am not making a definitive conclusion one way or the other, but merely rationally applying the available facts to evaluate the relative probability that the cops shot the owner due to him obstructing their ability to protect other's lives against the Bull, versus your assumption that they shot him because he was trying to help them by shooting the bull himself, and that nothing he or the bull did posed any threat to anyone.

 

[ksen]

Paragraph breaks man. We've been over this!

eta: lots of unsupported suppositions in there

 

[arkirk]

Also I imagine we'd be hearing more about in the outrage mills if they shot the one black guy in town.

Ya, shooting the one black guy would have made it really awkward.

As it is, if you're holding a gun and you get into an altercation with the police, you might want to put the gun down first.

A couple of don'ts. If you are white, don't confront the police with a gun. If you are black, don't confront the police armed or unarmed. The same rules apply.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ya, shooting the one black guy would have made it really awkward.

As it is, if you're holding a gun and you get into an altercation with the police, you might want to put the gun down first.

A couple of don'ts. If you are white, don't confront the police with a gun. If you are black, don't confront the police armed or unarmed. The same rules apply.

Well, it goes without saying that black people are assumed to be holding a gun, whether or not the police can see one.

 

[laughing dog]

Another interaction with police that didn't have to end in a dead person (maybe dead people by the time it's over).

Another faith-based conclusion based upon zero supporting facts and the total absence of reasoned thought.

Then why did you bother posting? Or do you have disinterested factual evidence that shows that such interactions must end with a dead person?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Well, it goes without saying that black people are assumed to be holding a gun, whether or not the police can see one.

As I recall, Idaho cops tend to assume people driving pickups have a gun, no matter what color the truck turns out to be.

 

[Underseer]

Also I imagine we'd be hearing more about in the outrage mills if they shot the one black guy in town.

As of the census[2] of 2010, there were 839 people, 360 households, and 224 families residing in the city. The population density was 839.0 inhabitants per square mile (323.9/km2). There were 476 housing units at an average density of 476.0 per square mile (183.8/km2). The racial makeup of the city was 96.5% White, 0.1% African American, 0.7% Native American, 0.2% Asian, 0.1% Pacific Islander, 0.2% from other races, and 2.0% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 3.0% of the population.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council,_Idaho

Outrage mills?

Your capacity for psychological projection is just adorable.

 

[ronburgundy]

Paragraph breaks man. We've been over this!

Tell you what. I will put in more paragraph breaks, when you take a break from your blind ideology and start making arguments with the faintest hint of rational thought.

eta: lots of unsupported suppositions in there

Not one unsupported supposition. You're entire OP is and absolutist assertion that in incoherent with the evidence. All my statements are merely an assessment of non-definitive probabilities based upon coherence with the current facts, which includes general facts about human behavior, such as that violence between people is far more common when their goals are in conflict rather than in support of each other. Engaging in rational thought prior to reaching the kind of certain conclusion you did in you OP requires considering how alternative possibilities cohere with all relevant information, which includes general facts that inform relative probabilities.

 

[laughing dog]

Tell you what. I will put in more paragraph breaks, when you take a break from your blind ideology and start making arguments with the faintest hint of rational thought.

eta: lots of unsupported suppositions in there

Not one unsupported supposition. You're entire OP is and absolutist assertion that in incoherent with the evidence. All my statements are merely an assessment of non-definitive probabilities based upon coherence with the current facts, which includes general facts about human behavior, such as that violence between people is far more common when their goals are in conflict rather than in support of each other. Engaging in rational thought prior to reaching the kind of certain conclusion you did in you OP requires considering how alternative possibilities cohere with all relevant information, which includes general facts that inform relative probabilities.

Someone in this thread said it best "Another faith-based conclusion based upon zero supporting facts and the total absence of reasoned thought".

 

[ronburgundy]

Another faith-based conclusion based upon zero supporting facts and the total absence of reasoned thought.

Then why did you bother posting? Or do you have disinterested factual evidence that shows that such interactions must end with a dead person?

Given your track record of blind faith underlying most of your assertions, it is no surprise that you don't even understand that their is an option between taking an unsupported absolutist position and taking and equally absolutist opposing position. I posted because I think claims ought to be commensurate with a rational evaluation of the evidence. ksen's claim logically presumes that the cop's acted recklessly and shot the guy even though it did nothing to reduce the threat that either he or his bull posed to anyone. Nothing in the story supports that conclusion, and what information we do have contradicts it, especially combined with basic general facts of human behavior I already mentioned.
These make the odd's are overwhelming that the owner was threatening the cops if they shot the Bull, and if the Bull was charging people, then every second they waited for another solution put others lives in danger from the Bull. There is no plausible motive for the cops to want to shoot the Bull if it wasn't a threat, and many witnesses that would contradict any false claims that it was. The only alternative scenario to the owner threatening the cops (and thus inherently threatening the lives of everyone endangered by his Bull) would be that the owner walked onto the scene with his gun and intended to shoot the Bull if needed, but the cops just shot him when they saw the gun. Given that the owner was called to the scene by the police dispatcher and thus the cops knew he was coming, that is not very plausible either.

 

[ronburgundy]

Tell you what. I will put in more paragraph breaks, when you take a break from your blind ideology and start making arguments with the faintest hint of rational thought.



Not one unsupported supposition. You're entire OP is and absolutist assertion that in incoherent with the evidence. All my statements are merely an assessment of non-definitive probabilities based upon coherence with the current facts, which includes general facts about human behavior, such as that violence between people is far more common when their goals are in conflict rather than in support of each other. Engaging in rational thought prior to reaching the kind of certain conclusion you did in you OP requires considering how alternative possibilities cohere with all relevant information, which includes general facts that inform relative probabilities.

Someone in this thread said it best "Another faith-based conclusion based upon zero supporting facts and the total absence of reasoned thought".

IOW, you are asserting that there is zero evidence to suggest that humans engage in more violence when their are conflicting goals rather than shared goals? Or do you lack the integrity to admit that this is the logically necessary assumption underlying your assertion that my statement has zero supporting facts?

 

[laughing dog]

Someone in this thread said it best "Another faith-based conclusion based upon zero supporting facts and the total absence of reasoned thought".

IOW, you are asserting that there is zero evidence to suggest that humans engage in more violence when their are conflicting goals rather than shared goals? Or do you lack the integrity to admit that this is the logically necessary assumption underlying your assertion that my statement has zero supporting facts?

You have yet to show that this situation had to end with someone's death. "Had to" means there was no other possible alternative. Your argument has as much to do with facts as ksen's observation.

To summary, I am asserting your attempt to prove ksen's observation has no basis in fact or reason.

 

[laughing dog]

Then why did you bother posting? Or do you have disinterested factual evidence that shows that such interactions must end with a dead person?

Given your track record of blind faith underlying most of your assertions, it is no surprise that you don't even understand that their is an option between taking an unsupported absolutist position and taking and equally absolutist opposing position. I posted because I think claims ought to be commensurate with a rational evaluation of the evidence. ksen's claim logically presumes that the cop's acted recklessly and shot the guy even though it did nothing to reduce the threat that either he or his bull posed to anyone. Nothing in the story supports that conclusion, and what information we do have contradicts it, especially combined with basic general facts of human behavior I already mentioned.
These make the odd's are overwhelming that the owner was threatening the cops if they shot the Bull, and if the Bull was charging people, then every second they waited for another solution put others lives in danger from the Bull. There is no plausible motive for the cops to want to shoot the Bull if it wasn't a threat, and many witnesses that would contradict any false claims that it was. The only alternative scenario to the owner threatening the cops (and thus inherently threatening the lives of everyone endangered by his Bull) would be that the owner walked onto the scene with his gun and intended to shoot the Bull if needed, but the cops just shot him when they saw the gun. Given that the owner was called to the scene by the police dispatcher and thus the cops knew he was coming, that is not very plausible either.

Rational thought indicates that not very plausible means that this death was not the only possible outcome (i.e. it did not have to end in death).

 

[ksen]

There should be a statement soon from the family, including a member that was there when it happened.

http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/local/article42229305.html

At Yantis’ home Tuesday, a man introducing himself as family member Rowdy Paradis said attorneys would release a statement soon on behalf of the family. He said he was 10 feet away when Yantis was shot.

There is a statement running around the internet supposedly made by Rowdy Paradis, the dead man's nephew, but I've been unable so far to find the original source:

Jack, Donna and Rowdy, Donna's nephew, showed up to take care of their bull. Jack was bent down and a second from shooting the bull when a cop grabbed him from the back and spun him around. He shot Jack in the stomach and the other cop shot him 4 times in the chest. The cops were standing behind Jack. Donna and Rowdy rushed down to Jack and the cops threw them face down on the ground and had guns to their head. Between what happened to her husband and the rough treatment, she had a massive heart attack. She was life flighted to Boise. She had another last night. This story came from Jack's nephew and it was told to him by Rowdy. The sheriff wanted Rowdy to change his account. The bull (becoming aggressive) seems key to the story but it wasn't even in the account I heard from Jack's nephew. There was crew trying to get the people out of the car that hit the bull. This sounds like a big coverup to me (the news account). I just can't understand how those cops could have done that. We seem to get the ex military rambos around here. I've heard plenty about these deputies being difficult. I don't know how Donna is doing. I hate to bother the family. I am pretty close to her and I'm so worried she isn't going to make it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Without knowing more any full judgement is premature. However, that the rancher showed up with a rifle to confront responders suggests he was ready to shoot anyone who intended to harm his bull. Therefore it is likely he died because of his imminent threat to use of lethal force...and therefore earned it.

Sad...but let the chips fall where they may.

That's exactly my thought, also.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have no reason to believe this is the likely scenario. I can just as easily see the rancher trying to remove the bull from the scene instead of having it killed if in his estimation the injuries to the bull were not life threatening. The officers order him to let them shoot his bull. He refuses. So the officers escalate and draw down on him instead.

That's not a rebuttal--your scenario is not incompatible with his.

The bull probably didn't have life-threatening injuries. That doesn't mean the rancher was in a position to haul it off--he probably can't haul off a pain-maddened animal. Meanwhile the bull posed a danger to the rescue workers on scene--his trying to protect his bull put an injured human in danger. Thus the bull got shot and he ended up shot along with it.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Police killings this year have surpassed lynching and capital punishments in all other years.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jerom...s-lynchings-capital-punishment_b_8462778.html

 

[ksen]

I have no reason to believe this is the likely scenario. I can just as easily see the rancher trying to remove the bull from the scene instead of having it killed if in his estimation the injuries to the bull were not life threatening. The officers order him to let them shoot his bull. He refuses. So the officers escalate and draw down on him instead.

That's not a rebuttal--your scenario is not incompatible with his.

I wasn't trying to rebut him.

The bull probably didn't have life-threatening injuries. That doesn't mean the rancher was in a position to haul it off--he probably can't haul off a pain-maddened animal. Meanwhile the bull posed a danger to the rescue workers on scene--his trying to protect his bull put an injured human in danger. Thus the bull got shot and he ended up shot along with it.

suppositions not based on known facts

 

[Metaphor]

How do you know he's white? I didn't mention race and the story doesn't mention it either.

He was always at the white privilege meetings.

Only suckers go to the meetings. I just wait for my White Privilege Money to be deposited in my account every fortnight.