Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You have no idea the chances because you do not know the variables he used to select the targets. Using the numbers we have now, the standard deviation is about 2, but the short fall is only one, which means the sample size (being under 30) is not enough to mathematically establish if the victims were targeted due to demographics.
Until more information comes to prove otherwise of course. They can still make a claim of a hate crime against despite the demographics of the victims, if they find evidence of such intent.
Reread my message. I said "if it had been Randomly sent to someone in Austin", the probability of it being a black victim twice is 1/13*1/13 which is 0.6% chance, that is completely random, of course we don't know more but I was just trying to show people the probability of it being black twice if it was completely random is nearly impossible, which is a fact. This doesn't mean their was racial bias because as another poster points out to figure that out you need to have a larger sample size.
Now if it is true that the third bomb targeted a wealthy black family and was misplaced. that would mean the probability of it would be 1/13*1/13*1/13 (of course this is a simplification of the math but it works because you would only remove a few numbers for families already targeted so essentially the ratio of blacks to austin city residents is unchanged) or 0.05% essentially impossible that their isn't a racial bias if we assumed he randomly selected all his victims out of people in Austin.
I seem to keep reading that they had the history of his google searches for targets, as well as, his last two packages had intended addresses? Why are they not elaborating more on those findings.....or have I missed something?
Terrorizing people does not automatically make you a terrorist.Words have meanings.
A terrorist is a person who uses unlawful violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.
If you want to say he was a person who terrorized the city, then he is a terrorizer. But that doesnt make him a terrorist.
One does not have to be orthodox Islamist to be a terrorist. All one has to do is create terror, using means of mass destruction, in a community, state or nation.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
