3 ms·

Your assumptions about both cases and your preconceived notions of racism have lead to you faulty conclusions. The Swartz case was about the response fitting th

Your assumptions about both cases and your preconceived notions of racism have lead to you faulty conclusions. The Swartz case was about the response fitting the crime. The Nieto case is about police officers ostensibly fearing for their own safety and the safety of other. Had Nieto's weapon been holstered and had he been arrested, I might have been just as critical about the prosecutorial response as I am in the Swartz case. And had Swartz come out guns blazing rather than taking his own life, I would not have faulted police for responding with deadly force. Your generalization is faulty because you've trivialized the relevant details away.

foldr 11y ago
>The Swartz case was about the response fitting the crime. The Nieto case is about police officers ostensibly fearing for their own safety and the safety of other. This says it all: you think that the Nieto case is inherently about whether the police officers feared for their lives, and the Swartz case is inherently about how poor Aaron was prosecuted unjustly. That is one perspective. Another perspective would be the inverse: the Nieto case is about how an innocent man got shot for no good reason, and the Swartz case is about how a naive and perhaps somewhat entitled young man made a series of stupid and entirely avoidable choices that led, predictably, to his being prosecuted. In other words, one could make an argument for blaming the victim in both cases. While it is apparently inconceivable to you that anyone should think of doing this in the Swartz case, it is so obvious to you that this is what we should do in the Nieto case that you can't even grasp the alternative. That is the bias that I'm getting at.
- cgriswald 11y ago
  > > This says it all: you think that the Nieto case is inherently about whether the police officers feared for their lives, and the Swartz case is inherently about how poor Aaron was prosecuted unjustly. > That is one perspective. It is a perspective in which one can hold a different opinion of these government actions based on contexts other than race. You seem to have both acknowledge this and moved the goalposts. > it is so obvious to you that this is what we should do in the Nieto case that you can't even grasp the alternative. This is just pointless bickering at that has no basis in reality and borders on an ad hominem argument. I am quite capable of grasping alternatives and putting thought into those alternatives. My personal opinion on either case isn't neither here nor there. The point is that you made generalizations and heavily implied that race was the motivating bias or context for people holding these different opinions. I am pointing out that you failed to make that case and, as a counterexample, provided another context in which people could reach those same conclusions without considering race.
  - foldr 11y ago
    I don't claim to know why people think about Nieto and Swartz in such different terms. I am just pointing out that they do. Objectively speaking, Swartz was much more at fault for his death than Nieto was, and yet for whatever reason, many people here are much more willing to blame the victim in the Nieto case. I think racism probably plays a part in that, but I can't look inside people's heads. What other (good) reason could there be for seeing Swartz as a victim but not Nieto? (Let me add that I'm not saying that Swartz was at fault for his death simply because it was a suicide. I don't think that we should blame people for killing themselves. What I'm getting at is that he freely chose to engage in civil disobedience without having properly thought through the potential consequences, which fairly obviously included at least some jail time.)

foldr 11y ago

>The Swartz case was about the response fitting the crime. The Nieto case is about police officers ostensibly fearing for their own safety and the safety of other. This says it all: you think that the Nieto case is inherently about whether the police officers feared for their lives, and the Swartz case is inherently about how poor Aaron was prosecuted unjustly. That is one perspective. Another perspective would be the inverse: the Nieto case is about how an innocent man got shot for no good reason, and the Swartz case is about how a naive and perhaps somewhat entitled young man made a series of stupid and entirely avoidable choices that led, predictably, to his being prosecuted. In other words, one could make an argument for blaming the victim in both cases. While it is apparently inconceivable to you that anyone should think of doing this in the Swartz case, it is so obvious to you that this is what we should do in the Nieto case that you can't even grasp the alternative. That is the bias that I'm getting at.

cgriswald 11y ago
> > This says it all: you think that the Nieto case is inherently about whether the police officers feared for their lives, and the Swartz case is inherently about how poor Aaron was prosecuted unjustly. > That is one perspective. It is a perspective in which one can hold a different opinion of these government actions based on contexts other than race. You seem to have both acknowledge this and moved the goalposts. > it is so obvious to you that this is what we should do in the Nieto case that you can't even grasp the alternative. This is just pointless bickering at that has no basis in reality and borders on an ad hominem argument. I am quite capable of grasping alternatives and putting thought into those alternatives. My personal opinion on either case isn't neither here nor there. The point is that you made generalizations and heavily implied that race was the motivating bias or context for people holding these different opinions. I am pointing out that you failed to make that case and, as a counterexample, provided another context in which people could reach those same conclusions without considering race.
- foldr 11y ago
  I don't claim to know why people think about Nieto and Swartz in such different terms. I am just pointing out that they do. Objectively speaking, Swartz was much more at fault for his death than Nieto was, and yet for whatever reason, many people here are much more willing to blame the victim in the Nieto case. I think racism probably plays a part in that, but I can't look inside people's heads. What other (good) reason could there be for seeing Swartz as a victim but not Nieto? (Let me add that I'm not saying that Swartz was at fault for his death simply because it was a suicide. I don't think that we should blame people for killing themselves. What I'm getting at is that he freely chose to engage in civil disobedience without having properly thought through the potential consequences, which fairly obviously included at least some jail time.)