4 ms·
This seems like total post-hoc reasoning like the debunked "violent video games cause real-life violence." Ultimately Officer Smith chose to take his own life;
by baryphonic 4y ago
This seems like total post-hoc reasoning like the debunked "violent video games cause real-life violence."
Ultimately Officer Smith chose to take his own life; no one made that choice for him. He may have been appalled or traumatized or whatever, but ultimately he's the one who did it. Doesn't make it any less tragic, but it's extremely tenuous absent additional evidence to lay blame at anyone but he himself.
If there was some evidence that he was subject to unique abuse and was personally targeted on that day, then maybe there might be some merit. But of the officers who were there, he experienced roughly what the other officers did, and he was the only one to commit suicide.
- munk-a 4y agoSorry, I had omitted sourcing in my original comment but here: > Dr. Jonathan Arden, the former Chief Medical Examiner of the District of Columbia was hired by Smith's widow as part of her lawsuit to have her husband's suicide ruled "in the line of duty". His report stated that the "acute, precipitating event that caused the death of Officer Smith was his occupational exposure to the traumatic events he suffered on January 6, 2021".[1] 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeffrey_L._Smith https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jeffrey_L._Smith
- jtbayly 4y ago
- weakfish 4y agoEr… that’s quite a large jump in reasoning
- happytoexplain 4y agoWhat is outrageous about investigating a person's motivations/psychology, and why does it become more outrageous if that person is deceased at the time of the investigation? You may disagree with the conclusion for some reason, but it seems like standard practice.
- vuln 4y agoShe hired an expert to get the ruling “line of duty” because it changes and increases his life insurance payouts. It also gives her access to survivors benefits and a slew of other things like part of his pension.
- munk-a 4y agoYes, it was a precedent breaking ruling - which tend not to be given out lightly. That is a strong indicator that during this motion all of the evidence was under even higher scrutiny.