Woman Commits Crime, Victim Goes To Jail

Em Carpenter

Em was one of those argumentative children who was sarcastically encouraged to become a lawyer, so she did. She is a proud life-long West Virginian, and, paradoxically, a liberal. In addition to writing about society, politics and culture, she enjoys cooking, podcasts, reading, and pretending to be a runner. She will correct your grammar. You can find her on Twitter.

Related Post Roulette

89 Responses

  1. JoeSal says:

    FTR is there footage of the child-stranger interaction, and also in some reports it is mentioned that the ‘stranger’ had a hold on the child.

    At any time did the stranger look for consent of the mother to interact with the child?Report

    • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

      The “reports” that the stranger had a hold of the child are ONLY from the mother’s original statement, which she recanted on further questioning. There was no other witnesses and the video footage shows nothing of any interaction. The officer said the footage was “peripheral” to the alleged incident, but somehow was contradictory, not sure what that means. The mother went from saying he grabbed the kid by the hair and started dragging her away to maybe he just smiled and patted her on the head.
      No, don’t touch a kid without permission… but no, I will not concede that we’ve gotten to a place where a pat on the head is an egregious offense that warrants the brandishing of a firearm or any involvement by law enforcement.Report

  2. Oscar Gordon says:

    Well, at least the police in this case kept enough of an open mind to figure out it was a hoax.Report

    • Em Carpenter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

      Yeah. Too bad the man had to endure what he did in the meantime. By the way, as of now, Thursday morning, he is STILL charged with kidnapping and the mother is STILL charged with nothing. The prosecutor is “still reviewing”.Report

  3. Doctor Jay says:

    A fascinating side note to this: We had a devout Muslim man, an engineer, come to practice at our dojo for a while. Since the most senior sensei is a woman, and we have other women students, the issue of touching women came up. He said he is religiously required to not touch women that aren’t his close relatives, but that many imams make an exception for cases such as patting little girls on the head.Report

    • JoeSal in reply to Doctor Jay says:

      There is a vague tradition around here that if you see a certain ‘life force glow’ from a child, it is your responsibility to rub the childs head or there will be some sort of life long curse on the child. The odd thing is that it is actually ‘YOUR RESPONSIBILITY’ to do the cultural norm thing.

      Of course preceding that is the american/texas tradition that you have to explain and receive consent to touch the child.Report

      • Doctor Jay in reply to JoeSal says:

        Or else spend the night in jail? I’m not familiar with that law.

        I wouldn’t touch anyone else’s child without their permission (with a few exceptions, like to drag them out of danger, for instance). But that’s a giant overreaction.Report

        • JoeSal in reply to Doctor Jay says:

          Or spend the night in jail is based on what the social truth is. The empirical truth is that child predators do exist.

          The social constructs (and individual constructs) on kidnapping avoidance has a lot to do with how consent is verified with the parent before a stranger-child interaction. If there is no consent given before the interaction, there is a question of the intent of the action.

          Where there is no consent verification I have no problem with a parent considering the stranger as a possible hostile, until it can be verified otherwise.

          I have no say one way or another in the social construct of Enforcement or what the stipulations of rule by law require. If the rule by law requires the unknowns spend time in jail then that is what the requirements are. Go argue with the rule by law folks if it makes you feel better.

          Maybe a night in jail is the cost of diversity and learning social norms.Report

          • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

            He didn’t go to jail for patting her on the head, though. He went to jail because the mother lied and said he grabbed the little girl by the hair and tried to pull her away. I really doubt the police would have taken any action if she had reported a head pat.Report

            • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

              Do you have incontestable empirical truth of what the interaction was, and not based on what people are saying the interaction was, because you are acting like you do.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                I’m telling you what the police said. My information comes from news reports, the criminal complaint, and law enforcement’s press conference.
                The police said mom reported an attempted snatching by the hair, she yelled and pulled a gun, he let go and fled. No witnesses saw it, there is no video of the interaction. There was, to quote the police, “peripheral” footage that called the woman’s story into question.
                They called her back in the next day for further questioning, at which time she changed her story and said it was a head pat and she overreacted.

                So, it’s not “what people are saying” the interaction was, unless by people you mean the mother.

                Link to press conference: https://www.wowktv.com/news/barboursville-police-provide-update-on-huntington-mall-incident_20190402205236/1895339373Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                So all your assumptions are based on social (collected) truth instead of empirical truth, and from that you are prescribing criminals and victims.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                You call the words of the alleged victim “social (collected) truth”?
                What the hell else is there to go on? NO video. NO witnesses. The story begins and ends with her statement.
                This is ridiculous.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                How can you even prescribe a victim if you don’t know the empirical truth?

                Even if he patted her on the head without consent, the written law and the enforcement are prescribing that as ‘battery’ as a social truth, which is completely opposite of what you are calling the victim here.

                Absolutely ridiculous.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                The statement of the complaining witness is not “social truth” and its as close to empirical as exists without a video. How does law enforcement EVER determine a victim/criminal if they don’t witness a crime or see it on video?

                The battery charge would be absurd and you know it, regardless of whether or not it technically fits the statute. It’s also a misdemeanor here, and he would not have even been arrested for it, let alone jailed on $200K bond.Report

              • George Turner in reply to JoeSal says:

                I have my doubts that she actually pulled a gun because the Egyptian man then went to the food court to get something to eat.

                That’s not normal behavior for someone who’s life has just been threatened.

                My suspicion is that the woman is having trouble separating reality from a narrative in her head.

                I would recommend holding her for evaluation, and the fact that she claims to have pulled a gun in that situation does establish that she may be a danger to herself or others.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to George Turner says:

                I think the only truth that might be found in this is that he didn’t ask for consent, and she was earnestly uncertain about the interaction.(and if not confused at the time of interaction then confused by the police)Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                How is your view that she was “earnestly uncertain” empirical?
                How is your view that she was confused by police if not by the incident empirical?
                How is all of this, plus him not asking for consent, empirical but what I’m saying isn’t, when it’s based on the same info?
                You seriously think a person could in good faith mistake a head pat for “grabbing her by the hair and pulling her away”?

                I feel like you are being disingenuous.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                You are correct it is not empirical, and It took me a few seconds to catch it and correct it.(I hold comment edit capabilities for the first +/-60 seconds of commenting)

                It is known that questioning interactions with police can change a persons subjective version of the truth.

                Hell if we had the empirical truth would we still be having this discussion?

                I think it is a bit of shaky ground to rely heavily on social truths.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                I agree that police questioning can make a person second-guess themselves.
                But I don’t see the police badgering a mother who believed her child was about to be kidnapped into changing her story unless they well and truly believe she made it up. To be blunt about it, the cops around here are not going to go out of their way to prove the nice young white lady is lying about the Muslim man. It’s more obvious when you consider the fact that even now, he’s still charged and they are looking to at least keep a battery charge on him. I just don’t see the police causing her to change her story beyond pointing out some discrepancies.
                And by the way, people go to prison for life based on what you call “social truths”.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                I am not sure what the cops impact on this is other than being a quantum more than zero. Social truth issues don’t happen in a bubble, cops have been nefarious in various ways, both for and against white ladies.

                I am fully aware people go to prison for life based on social truths, maybe it would be better if they only went to prison on empirical truth? There are many reasons I don’t believe in the legitimacy of the vast array of social constructs that have been built.

                And if we can pretty much use a socially unresolved truth and say that white lady is lying, what’s to keep me from saying that your lying about a white lady lying? Eventually the truth is going to become important somewhere in here, or I guess not.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to JoeSal says:

                If we are going to win back truth, I think we have to parse what is empirical and what is social.

                This interaction you and I are having makes me think there may need to be another category. I may have over simplified the model.Report

              • bookdragon in reply to George Turner says:

                I think you are right on that. The claim of pulling a gun seems incongruous, esp. since I would expect witnesses to notice that even if they did not notice anything else. Even if there were no other customers nearby, a customer drawing gun and pointing it at someone is the sort of thing a clerk should notice.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to bookdragon says:

                Good point.Report

        • Oscar Gordon in reply to Doctor Jay says:

          The particulars matter. Did the guy move towards the girl to pat her head, or was it the more likely case that the girl was moving around the store, oblivious to their surroundings (as young children often are), and she bumped into the man, who patted her on the head as a way to express that all was good.

          FSM knows I’ve done that exact thing often enough when a child barrels into me.Report

          • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

            Absolutely, particulars matter, and the social rush to judgements of sinners and saints probably should be avoided until things are clear, of which they may never be.
            I would like to think we live in a world were a stranger could pat a kid on the head for accidentally running into me, but I don’t think this is that world anymore.Report

            • Philip H in reply to JoeSal says:

              You also seem to think that “social truth” and “empirical truth” are seperable and that only empirical truth matters. Its a nice “alternative narrative” but its not how societies and people work.

              It’s empirical truth that sea level is rising (all be it slowly). Its empirical truth that humans living along coastal areas will have to deal with it. It is social truth that we can ignore the empirical truth because we can’t fight nature. Which is a bad societal truth.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Philip H says:

                Good points, and it is a ongoing thing I am working on.

                There is this problem about social truth and what it is and should it be resolved, can it be resolved, and what to do if it can’t be resolved.

                The truth components actually plug into objectivity, and I do think empirical truth components can be resolved to narrow measures in empirical objectivity.

                The problem is people operate as though social objectivity is resolved, somewhat as Em is doing here, when the truth component isn’t really fully resolved.

                This stuff used to drive me crazy when talking to the leftwards on site, because I couldn’t point to the social truth component and say “hey, you don’t have your social truth component resolved, so your stealing a base in social objectivity”.

                I had problems accepting that social objectivity was whole cloth, when I knew it wasn’t.Report

              • pillsy in reply to JoeSal says:

                Eh everything comes with error bars, but we usually gloss over that in even fairly involved conversation. And I’d go so far as to say that most forms of knowledge have some social component because they kind of have to, given how lousy our brains are at checking their own work.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to pillsy says:

                I agree, but even let’s say looking the way EM titled this, using as much empirical truth as we can, are the words “Crime” and “Victim” here really using good judgement in error bars? Is the social truth even resolved to that point?Report

              • JoeSal in reply to JoeSal says:

                The other part of this is i can’t recognize whether the case is:
                “Well of course we are stealing a base in social objectivity…everyone knows that!”


                ” Oh, yeah that’s unresolved and we shouldn’t have done that….but it’s a just a really biggish rounding error”

                I can’t discern the truth of a starting premise.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                She filed a false report, and that’s a crime.
                Empirically, we know we have 0 witnesses, but 2 stories from the same person, one of which must be false.
                He went to jail because of it, which makes him a victim of her crime.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                What makes you think she thought her report was false at the time she first described the encounter?

                Do you feel some need to make her a criminal?Report

              • Philip H in reply to JoeSal says:

                Really? Are you so set on the idea that social truth isn’t truth that you aren’t willing to look at the outcome and draw the conclusion she was probably lying? Man, that’s a great world to pull yourself into, but that’s not how any of this works. If the guy just patted the girl’s head – and by all accounts that’s his entire “crime” – then everything the mom did after was predicated on a lie. First lie was the one she told herself that this Arabic man was a threat. Second lie was he was trying to take her kid. Third lie was she called the police and told them this. Fourth lie was she told the police she chased him off by drawing her gun. There’s nothing truthful about her narrative.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Philip H says:

                Your basing social objectivity on a “If” statement.

                So i take it you are using the “of course we are stealing a base” premise.Report

              • dragonfrog in reply to JoeSal says:

                I agree, but even let’s say looking the way EM titled this, using as much empirical truth as we can, are the words “Crime” and “Victim” here really using good judgement in error bars? Is the social truth even resolved to that point?

                How do we know that the words we read believing them to be the criminal code are in fact the real criminal code in effect in the state where these actions took place?

                How do we know they’re not actually a vegetarian cookbook written in another language that coincidentally reads the same as English text that happens to make up a coherent criminal code?

                How do we know we’re not all in a huge computer simulation running on a hacked Roomba vacuum cleaner in Queen Latifah’s living room?Report

              • Chip Daniels in reply to dragonfrog says:

                That…would explain quite a bit of our current reality, actually.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to dragonfrog says:

                Shit gets real bad when instead of a can opener you assume “social truth”.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to JoeSal says:

                Because she says it wasn’t true. Because no one in the store saw anything. Because according to the police her story was inconsistent and what video existed contradicted her story (they have not said how).
                Yes, I think she straight up lied and she’s a criminal in this matter.Report

              • pillsy in reply to JoeSal says:


                I think so because it seems you would have to concoct a whole pile of wacky coincidences to reach another result. For an informal blog-commenting conversation (and most informal conversations) that’s enough.

                It’s not enough if we were talking about actually sending the woman to prison (or fining her or whatever).Report

              • JoeSal in reply to pillsy says:

                @ pillsy
                Hmm, could I have a little more clarity on that last comment.Report

              • pillsy in reply to JoeSal says:

                Basically the base being stolen, if you will, is a really minor one. Of comparable significance to the assumptions we make every day.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to pillsy says:

                Many thanks,
                is it really a minor base though? suppose empirically the guy really was attempting to kidnap?

                (I’m not at all saying he was, just using this as a condition to illustrate the importance of the truth component in social objectivity)

                That would change the issues with the title considerably.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:


                Truth is beholden to Occam’s Razor. Or perhaps it’s the Sagan Standard.

                Kidnapping is an extraordinary claim, thus it requires extraordinary evidence.Report

              • pillsy in reply to Oscar Gordon says:


                Given the rest of the information we have (like that the woman walked her story way the hell back) I think that’s by far the most plausible explanation.

                And Oscar’s point about Occam’s Razor is on point. Having one person act in a bizarre and irrational fashion seems much more likely than having two people do so independently.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to pillsy says:

                @ pillsy
                I don’t consider that the lady, the guy or the cops acted rationally. Probably even the law makers that created the battery law has some issues.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to JoeSal says:

                I appreciate your feedback and thanks for helping me see it, as you see it. I often wonder how people think of things.

                If i said anything you might of found edgy i apologize.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                @ Oscar
                Yeah I start to put away Occam’s when the subject is the truth, mostly because Occam’s deployment usually means your near guessing.

                Sagan Standard, fair enough, but even then Is the threshold of Sagan reached enough here to claim crime and victims?

                Hell, I don’t think the cops even had enough of a threshold to question the guy(let alone put him in jail), as far as truth components go. No witnesses, no video, it reduced to a he said, she* said.

                So can the truth components justify the usage of Crime and Victim in the title?

                (*Let’s ignore the whole #IBelieveHer for the moment)Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                The whole point of Occam is to attempt to determine a truth value when a guess is all you really have.

                As to your question, yes, the title fits. If a person lies in order to cause the state to commit violence on their behalf, they have committed a crime, and the person who was lied about is a victim of that crime.

                This is right up there with SWATing. Obviously, if the state was not always so eager to employ violence on the barest of pretenses, this wouldn’t be such an issue. But society has decided that it would rather the state over-react than under-react.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Isn’t the simpler concept that she believed that the guy was attempting to kidnap her child? Everything after that gets complicated yes.

                It gets more Rube Goldberg the other way…. She has to be a white lady at the mall looking for a muslim guy to what…walk past her, hope the guy contacts the kid, so she could then whip out a gun that he doesn’t run to evade and no one sees? call the cops. Assume the cops will show up. assumes the cops will not dismiss this as a he-said she-said? cops she assumes will file the report. All this outside the view of any cameras. (ETA no witnesses.)

                That’s a hell of a lot of work for criminal action.

                I’m not dismissing it…. but damn.

                The Sagan thing appears to work better, There would need to be extraordinary evidence he was attempting to kidnap, and there would need to be extraordinary evidence she was attempting to file a false report.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                You are constructing a more nefarious narrative than needs be. She didn’t need to be waiting for a Muslim guy or what not. This all could have happened very spur of the moment with her constructing a narrative in her own head based upon her own biases.

                Try this on for size.

                Mom and daughter are in store. Daughter, being 5, is running around. Daughter bumps into our older gentleman. Gentleman pats her on the head and sends her on her way. Mom witnesses this whole interaction.

                Perhaps she had noticed the man earlier and his presence made her uncomfortable in some way. Perhaps she has reason to be concerned someone might try to take her child. Perhaps she just watches too much local news and daytime TV and her risk assessment is blown. Perhaps she is just a nasty racist who is pissed that a dirty brown person touched her daughter.

                So she sees the bump, the pat on the head, and now perhaps her own hand is on her gun just in case, and her adrenaline is pumping, and then… nothing happens. The guy walks away to grab some food, her daughter keeps running around, and she is all worked up over nothing.

                Some people, for whatever reason, can’t let that stand. Once they’ve spun up for the drama, they have to have the drama. So a brief moment of panic turns into a full-blown kidnapping attempt.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Ok, except uncertainty of cameras and possible witnesses that would contradict her story and make the filing of the false report criminal.

                If she knows the police are going to look into it, the crime becomes more complex.

                Occams, if it is the standard, is still in favor of her seeing the truth as the guy was attempting a kidnapping.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                If she knows the police are going to look into it, the crime becomes more complex.

                Ever heard of a lie running away with a person?

                Once she decided on the course of action to call the police, she probably never assumed that they would question her narrative. And hell, if the police hadn’t noticed something on the video they did have, they might have believed her narrative enough that it would take a good defense lawyer and a jury to set him free.

                But people who construct such narratives are usually pretty good at it, and are used to being believed based upon the strength of their narrative.

                And the ones who are really good at it we often elect to public office.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                I’m not dismissing what you are saying, and i know those type of people exist.

                Again is the simpler concept that this is a ordinary/average person who believed the truth was there was a attempted kidnapping?Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                No, because kidnapping involves more than a simple touch. It requires an obvious attempt to physically remove a person to another location.Report

              • Em Carpenter in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Or to keep them somewhere and not let them leave.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Em Carpenter says:

                I would say attempted kidnapping is not the same as kidnapping.

                Also the perception of interaction that looked like attempted kidnapping is different than an actual attempted kidnapping.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                @ Oscar
                And you think this person didn’t perceive the interaction as attempted kidnapping and willfully pursued a false report?

                As opposed to perceiving the interaction as a real attempt and filing a report in earnest?

                (Just making sure)Report

              • pillsy in reply to JoeSal says:


                No problem. Nothing struck me as particularly edgy.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                Let me put it this way, unless we learn that the man was doing more than giving a young girl a pat on the head (like he was actively trying to lure her away from her mother and to some place he could not be observed), and the woman truly, honestly perceived the interaction to be a serious kidnapping attempt, then the woman probably needs significant psychological help and perhaps should not be caring for a small child.

                We have a ‘reasonable person’ standard for these kinds of things for a reason.

                ETA: In reply to this:

                Also the perception of interaction that looked like attempted kidnapping is different than an actual attempted kidnapping.

                Now who is stealing a base?Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Now hold on, the only claim i would be making here is that there is not enough empirical evidence to justify a victim and criminal between the lady and the guy.

                There is a partial claim that there isn’t enough social truth to define a criminal and victim.

                And again your very first word in this is “Unless”, which means you partially understand the base stealing in the claims about crime and victim.

                I think all scenarios are in play. Even all the ones you mentioned. There are scenarios were he doesn’t even touch the child.

                Let’s try this one:
                The guy doesn’t know how to speak english so there is no way to ask the mother for consent to interact with the child, but he does it anyway.

                There are a number of possibilities in the interaction. maybe he does lightly grip her shoulder, maybe he doesn’t.

                suppose he does somewhat pat the kid on the head right? no big deal.

                Mom spots that there is a interaction going on and she starts to question the guy to make sure the kid is ok.

                The guy doesn’t speak english so there is no reply. Maybe the guy shrugs does some weird smile, whatever, but, he’s not talking. The thing you would expect to happen to make intentions clear, never happens.

                So the guy with his hand on the kids head turns to leave, because he can’t explain, and has been confronted, or at least had language directed at him that he cannot answer.

                Mind you no sinners no saints at this point.

                Then the guys ring, or watch gets tangled in the kids hair as he turns to leave. Maybe the hair is just long enough to get wrapped around the guys fingers. What ever entanglement happens he has taken several steps toward the stores door inadvertently dragging the kid a few steps.

                Maybe the kid makes a noise because it hurts, maybe not.

                Still no voice interaction from the guy about what is going on, he just leaves the store.

                Maybe that wouldn’t look like a kidnapping to some people, but to this mother it was enough that she called the cops and filed a report.

                The cops pick the guy up. I assume they don’t speak arabic, maybe one does, but they are limited on information until they can get a interpretation of the interaction.

                Maybe it gets interpreted, maybe the guy just smiles and pats himself or the cops on the head.

                Either way the moms story doesn’t start into the smile and pat on the head until after the cops speak with her. Also She learns new information that the guy can’t speak english.

                Then she starts thinking about the events and sees a possibility that this wasn’t a kidnapping at all. It is a cultural misunderstanding. The guy couldn’t ask for consent as is the social norm. He couldn’t explain himself which would be a cultural norm. (I’m spit balling it here on social norms, it could go plus or minus)

                The kids hair getting pulled could have been an accident.

                With new information and some thought about it she decides to change the story.

                (Note this is still the mom that if she doesn’t pass your “psychological help” would be seperated from her child).

                The claim I am making is that there is a very real possibility that the social truth component in this is unresolved. Where as there are some personal preferences here to claim it is resolved enough to pick criminals and victims.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                This is the base you are stealing, that a (possible) minor cultural misunderstanding can reasonably be interpreted as a kidnapping attempt.

                Note the word ‘reasonably’, I’ve mentioned it before.

                Kidnapping, even attempted kidnapping, is something that has a bar to clear, and it’s a bar that a normal, reasonable adult should understand and recognize.

                So your claim is that this woman failed to be reasonable, and over-inflated the seriousness of a minor faux pas, and rather than take the mea culpa, she engaged the violence of the state to shield her embarrassment.

                Let me say that again, she engaged the violence of the state because she was, at best, embarrassed at her over-reaction. She didn’t call the police and tell them some sketchy guy touched her child, or otherwise accurately described the interaction, she told them he attempted to kidnap her child and she had to draw down on him with her firearm in order to make him go away and leave her child alone. That is a story designed to illicit a very specific, violent, response from the state.

                I’m not sure how the guy is not a victim, and the woman, once she decided to tell the police that story, she became a criminal.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                My point again is social truth. If I take a random 30 ‘reasonable’ people and they see the scenario I described, how many would interpret it in the category of attempted kidnapping (with a threshold to notify the police about it)?

                Maybe I do have an assumed social truth wrong on this one.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                My bet is that the number of people who see it as an attempted kidnapping are a significant minority, and as such, it would not be a ‘social truth’.Report

              • I’m confused why I would need to wade into the nuances of social truth when the principle party here is already been proven a liar.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                My bet would go the other way that it could be higher than half.

                But my claim about social truth is it is unresolved, not to what degree.

                If I was a stickler, all I would need is one, but my bet is there would be more.

                I haven’t developed the model enough to say if X amount of people believe the social truth Y then social truth Y is resolved.

                There do appear to be some issues with averaging social truth, maybe that is a discussion for another time.

                I’m starting to think there should be ‘The Tenth Man Principle’ deployed to identify if a social truth is resolved, but then we would have to find a tenth man worthy of truth. Then we run into that whole, ‘who is the guardian of the guard of truth’ escalation.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                Claiming a minority report qualifies as a social truth is most certainly stealing a base here. That is dangerously close to post-modernist thought.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                Well, there isn’t even a case against the majority report yet, so the base is still there.

                (I can’t tell from this, are you indicating hung jurys are illegitimate?)Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                No, a hung jury is legitimate, but the purpose of the minority report is important, especially when it comes to how the state leverages it’s power over us.

                Listen, what all of this ultimately comes down to is that the woman lied about the facts at hand in order to illicit the state to exercise violence towards another person. Had she called the police and told them the truth, we’d not be having this conversation.

                But no, she made the conscious decision to lie, to spin a narrative that was not even remotely close to the truth.

                She destroyed any claim to social (or any other) truth in that moment.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                What context are you using minority report?Report

              • JoeSal in reply to JoeSal says:

                The root of the issue here is social objectivity, or maybe the objectivity involved in social matters, either way. As with regular objectivity, the truth components that make up the objectivity must be resolved. If there are unresolved truth components in your objectivity then you are not operating with objectivity.

                So when someone claims social objectivity I expect that they have resolved their social truth components, otherwise they are operating under a matter of preference.
                I don’t think that social truth actually exists, therefore social objectivity doesn’t exists. Which means to me that anyone making a claim under, in, or around social objectivity is creating a social fabrication. So if there is a claim of Victim or Criminal without irrefutable empirical truth to back it up, it is a social fabrication.

                But you know, let me sip a little social and not just assume outright fabrication, So I start asking about the social truths, what evidence do you have:
                Video? Nope.
                Witnesses? Nope.

                I start into the whole, ‘you know there is a issue in assumptions of social truth here?’

                I get mixed reactions, Some admit, ‘yeah we know but it’s just part of it’….(Woo thank babee Geesus, the smart ones know it’s not whole cloth.)

                There are these others though….’We stand on the whole cloth and granite boulder of social objectivity, and you sir are wrong’…..(Ah damn, here we go)

                The actual narrative in this ladies head, would be the truth component needed to prove whether(when) she was lying on purpose or not.

                If you want to attempt to claim psycho-mom let a lie run away with her, fine be my guest. I just as easily created a possible truth that made the interaction indistinguishable from a attempted kidnapping. Social objectivity can’t survive with both of those truths being a possibility.

                That would require the absence of objective reality(PM). You could take the easy route and just ignore truth components that don’t fit your preference, but it would remain as a possibility.

                Since Postmodernism cannot exist in a Objectivism frame work, you don’t really know you are working outside of postmodernism until you resolve your truth components.

                I have probably taken up too much of your time on this, as always it’s been a joy discussing these issues.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                If there are unresolved truth components in your objectivity then you are not operating with objectivity.

                This is wrong. Flat out, full stop.

                You can have unresolved truth components and still be operating objectively. What you can not do is craft narratives to satisfy subjective truths and claim them as objective.

                I just as easily created a possible truth that made the interaction indistinguishable from a attempted kidnapping.

                No, you didn’t. You’d have to be unhinged to honestly think that your scenario was a serious kidnap attempt. You might start thinking it was, but you couldn’t finish the interaction thinking it was anything other than a misunderstanding.

                The woman knew the truth, as evidenced by the fact that once confronted with whatever inconsistency the police uncovered, she walked her story back immediately. Now perhaps her initial perception that the man was trying to kidnap her daughter was, subjectively for her, correct. We can never know for certain. But we do not allow people to cause harm to others over incorrect perceptions.*

                But her choice to tale the police that she had to draw a weapon and scare the man off, that was a deliberate CHOICE. That is what she did to make herself a criminal, and the man a victim.

                *except for the police.Report

              • JoeSal in reply to Oscar Gordon says:

                ‘We can never know for certain.’

                There ya go. Full stop.Report

              • Oscar Gordon in reply to JoeSal says:

                But that part is not relevant, because when pressed, she told a different story. She KNEW the objective truth, regardless of what her perception in the moment was. She made a choice to lie to the police in order to get them to take action.

                If she had just called and said, “I think a man just tried to kidnap my daughter.” I’d be willing to grant her the benefit of the doubt.

                But she embellished that part with fantastic elements of having to draw a weapon and stop the man. That part is completely distinct from whatever her perception of the initial incident was. That is what made her a criminal.Report

  4. Aaron David says:

    Are we sure it wasn’t Joe Biden?Report

  5. CJColucci says:

    We can be sure that Donald Trump will have DOJ look into this, can’t we?Report

  6. Jaybird says:

    Maybe legalizing pot would help prevent this sort of thing!Report

  7. Marchmaine says:

    Another example of how abortion corrupts our country.Report

  8. Em Carpenter says:

    UPDATE: Charges were dismissed around noon today. No new charges filed.


  9. Mike Schilling says:

    Even NRA spokeswoman Dana Loesch tweeted the story out, but has yet to update or retract


  10. dragonfrog says:

    Here in Alberta, someone just got charged with making a fake terrorist threat in order to get his room mate arrested for terrorism. Thankfully, the police went straight to arresting the fraudster, without first arresting his intended victim.


  11. LeeEsq says:

    The Egyptian man should sue the mother for malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress for her extreme and outrageous conduct. Her statements to the press might also count as per se defamation because they implied he had a base and criminal character.Report