She got punched and had her purse stolen. What makes you think this is an instance of the “knockout game” and not just a mugging? You seem to be double-counting the evidence, just like fubarobfusco describes in this comment.
The other examples discussed in that article are a little more credible, since it appears there was no robbery involved in many of them. Still, I’d like to know whether the rate of such unprovoked and apparently motiveless acts of aggression has actually increased recently (coinciding with the supposed prevalence of this game), or whether this is just the availability heuristic at work. I suspect the latter.
My current assumption is that “knockout game” is ginned-up “whats-wrong-with-the-youth” moral panic of the sort we’ve seen a number of times before (“superpredators” and “rainbow parties” being two examples that come to mind).
She got punched and had her purse stolen. What makes you think this is an instance of the “knockout game” and not just a mugging?
How many congressmen have been mugged in the past, say decade? Or even been the victim’s of random crime (as opposed to targeted because of their position)?
This means that this attack is either a strong statistical fluke, or it means violent crime is increasing since even congressmen who are (a) few and (b) presumably better protected than typical citizens are affected.
Well, Bureau of Justice statistics show that rates of simple assault have been increasing recently. I didn’t need to read about the Congresswoman being assaulted to be convinced of that; I have much stronger evidence available. You were offering this incident as evidence that the “knockout game” is a thing, I thought, not just evidence that violent crime is up. After all, the latter hypothesis is entirely compatible with this just being a mugging.
Are you suggesting that a knockout game epidemic is the best explanation for the increase in simple assault?
She got punched and had her purse stolen. What makes you think this is an instance of the “knockout game” and not just a mugging? You seem to be double-counting the evidence, just like fubarobfusco describes in this comment.
The other examples discussed in that article are a little more credible, since it appears there was no robbery involved in many of them. Still, I’d like to know whether the rate of such unprovoked and apparently motiveless acts of aggression has actually increased recently (coinciding with the supposed prevalence of this game), or whether this is just the availability heuristic at work. I suspect the latter.
My current assumption is that “knockout game” is ginned-up “whats-wrong-with-the-youth” moral panic of the sort we’ve seen a number of times before (“superpredators” and “rainbow parties” being two examples that come to mind).
How many congressmen have been mugged in the past, say decade? Or even been the victim’s of random crime (as opposed to targeted because of their position)?
Not many more than one, I’d imagine. Quite possibly just one. What should I be inferring from this?
This means that this attack is either a strong statistical fluke, or it means violent crime is increasing since even congressmen who are (a) few and (b) presumably better protected than typical citizens are affected.
Well, Bureau of Justice statistics show that rates of simple assault have been increasing recently. I didn’t need to read about the Congresswoman being assaulted to be convinced of that; I have much stronger evidence available. You were offering this incident as evidence that the “knockout game” is a thing, I thought, not just evidence that violent crime is up. After all, the latter hypothesis is entirely compatible with this just being a mugging.
Are you suggesting that a knockout game epidemic is the best explanation for the increase in simple assault?