Would You Allow Someone Who Is 5-10% More Likely To Assault You Into Your House, If Not, Why Let Him In Your Country?

28th April 2014

Please discuss.

Well, would you?

This would be much easier to respond to if you could explain how any individual could be described as '5-10% more likely to assault you' than somebody else.

Eilzel wrote:This would be much easier to respond to if you could explain how any individual could be described as '5-10% more likely to assault you' than somebody else.

Why would that make things easier?

I think the question is very simple, clear and concise.

Now, give it a shot Eli.

Answer the question before I answer it for you.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Eilzel wrote:This would be much easier to respond to if you could explain how any individual could be described as '5-10% more likely to assault you' than somebody else.

Why would that make things easier?

I think the question is very simple, clear and concise.

Now, give it a shot Eli.

Answer the question before I answer it for you.

But you're not really explaining where your % starts from. I mean, I know people, friends, family, people I just know etc; who I would invite into my house. Now some of those people I know would be more likely (although still not likely at all in truth) to commit an assault than others- for various reasons, maybe more temperamental or whatever; but since the starting point at which anyone is likely to commit an assault is very low to begin with then even someone being '5% more likely to commit assault' is not really likely to do any such thing.

So on that basis I'd still invite them in; because the chances of there being an actual assault is still ridiculously small and I'm not going to treat them with in-hospitality just because there is a fractionally small chance they may be more likely (according to some arbitrary %) to commit an assault. Which answers your question.

It's a really strange question -- the only way to tell if an individual is 5-10 percent more likely to assault you is if they're maybe, wearing T-shirt that says, "Hi, I'm 5-10 percent more likely to assault you than the average person" and you believe it.

I don't think my answer conformed to the answer Big A wanted  

Sorry folks, but it wasn't my question.

It was some Australian Police Chief or something...

I'll try and find it.

Eilzel wrote:This would be much easier to respond to if you could explain how any individual could be described as '5-10% more likely to assault you' than somebody else.

Easy be an Anglo from Blacktown(western Sydney)       

SO my Answer is yes as by stats I would have fallen into that Category for most of my 20's    Many of my friends still do   

OK

A stranger knock on my door. Wearing face cover. Not mentioning orientation of sex could be either....... Full Muslim garb or Balaclava.

No way would either get through my front door.

No proper facial contact.

No trust.

No entry.

gerber wrote:OK

A stranger knock on my door.  Wearing face cover.  Not mentioning orientation of sex could be either.......  Full Muslim garb or Balaclava.

No way would either get through my front door.

No proper facial contact.

No trust.

No entry.

what about burns victims?
      

Well I'd open my mouth and speak to them first.  

gerber wrote:OK

A stranger knock on my door.  Wearing face cover.  Not mentioning orientation of sex could be either.......  Full Muslim garb or Balaclava.

No way would either get through my front door.

No proper facial contact.

No trust.

No entry.

If someone is wearing a balaclava at your door (veya's exceptional burns victim aside) it would be very odd and certainly I would agree. But that wasn't Andy's question.

^Veya, good point about people in their 20s; this is why the question is so inane really; whether put by Andy or an Australian police chief.

Eilzel wrote:

gerber wrote:OK

A stranger knock on my door.  Wearing face cover.  Not mentioning orientation of sex could be either.......  Full Muslim garb or Balaclava.

No way would either get through my front door.

No proper facial contact.

No trust.

No entry.

If someone is wearing a balaclava at your door (veya's exceptional burns victim aside) it would be very odd and certainly I would agree. But that wasn't Andy's question.

^Veya, good point about people in their 20s; this is why the question is so inane really; whether put by Andy or an Australian police chief.

I'm pretty sure it was the British Guy we had and have since gotten rid of     

They say they don't want black riots the same as those in London a couple of years ago - who can blame them?

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/african-youth-crime-concern-20120819-24glt.html

SUDANESE and Somali-born Victorians are about five times more likely to commit crimes than the wider community, a trend that must be addressed to prevent Cronulla-style social unrest, police warn.

The most common crimes committed by Somali and Sudanese-born Victorians are assault and robbery, illustrating the trend towards increasingly violent robberies by disaffected African youths.

''We've got to fix this now and make sure it doesn't continue, so the kids who are now 10 years old aren't in this offender bracket in five years' time. So we don't get the Cronullas happening,'' Victoria Police Deputy Commissioner Tim Cartwright said.

''[At Cronulla] you had a big chunk of the community disengaged and coming to a point where you have large-scale civil unrest. That's abhorrent to us, to think we would have that.



''You look at the UK riots and you think, we don't ever want to go there, we don't ever want to see segments of our community saying they just don't care what the rest of the community does, they don't care for us, they have no engagement, don't recognise the legal system, don't recognise education.

''In the longer term the challenge for us is to fix that,'' he said.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/african-youth-crime-concern-20120819-24glt.html#ixzz30GD1svgS

So there you go Andy. Most of the wider community are totally unlikely to commit assault, even at 5% more likelihood it is still low, so I'd let them in.

Ummm Andy that's is from 2012   
Do you know what has happened in the 2 years Since?  
We have taken in More Africans and Haven't had any major problems in Fact many of the issues that looked like the could have developed have been nipped in the bud through working together with community inclusion projects  ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: ::D:: 

the largest community of Somalis and Sudanese in Australia is in Blacktown (we joke that they thought the name was instructions) My Suburb, and no they are not very criminal at all, at first the came over and always wore suits and stuff looked like they were going to church all the time(they go to Church a lot compared than White Aussies) then that changed to 'Gangsta Rapper' And their was concern they would start behaving like the criminals they were dressing like but now they have settled into their own style/place, they have blended their traditional(aspired) African style with the Aussie one, we are starting to see their restaurants pop up now etc.

Eilzel wrote:So there you go Andy. Most of the wider community are totally unlikely to commit assault, even at 5% more likelihood it is still low, so I'd let them in.

it was 5 times more likely (i.e 500%), it was a very short term spate due to getting bunch of 'child soldiers' as refugees. Our Systems took a year or 2 get around this 'new' type of refugee we have had plenty of practice with other types (war orphans, famine survivors, persecuted minorities etc) so it wasn't too hard to adapt a new strategy to 'Australianize' them into our Hybrid Culture.
               

gerber wrote:OK

A stranger knock on my door.  Wearing face cover.  Not mentioning orientation of sex could be either.......  Full Muslim garb or Balaclava.

No way would either get through my front door.

No proper facial contact.

No trust.

No entry.

Gerbs, you wouldn't let a Muslim wearing full garb, in?

Interesting.

Would anyone else?