4 ms·

But how can a rational person believe the police is at fault compared to captors like it's a normal thing to take hostages?

GeoAtreides 2y ago
Surely the question is whose fault it is, but whose side offers more chances for survival; apparently, in this case, it was the wrong side.
- lbwtaylor 2y ago
  You can desire the police cooperate with the hostage takers, without taking the side of the hostage takers. The proof is in the pudding - the police ended the hostage taking with no lives lost. To after the fact continue to take the side of the hostage takers is pretty terrible to me. All of this is Olsson's fault.
  - octopoc 2y ago
    What constitutes "taking the hostage takers' side"? She's not begging that the police release the perps, she's not saying that they were within their rights to rob the bank or anything like that. It's more complicated than just "she is taking the police's side" vs "she is taking the perps' side".
    - mewpmewp2 2y ago
      But the fact that she's talking fondly of the hostage takers is exactly the evidence of phenomena of the stockholm syndrome. Could police have done things better? For sure. Were they inexperienced with the hostage situation? Yeah. But to speak negatively of the people trying to diffuse the situation and positively of the hostage takers is what is definition of the stockholm syndrome, because clearly none of it would've happened if it wasn't for the hostage takers. The fact that she's not actively condemning the criminals and hostage takers speaks volumes to me.
      - gqcwwjtg 2y ago
        Maybe chill out on criticizing the reaction of someone involved in such a traumatic scenario where they’re not treated well by any side. It’s not what the article is about and it’s pretty gross.
engineer_22 2y ago
Humans aren't rational, they're made of flesh and blood.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  And for those irrational cases we have labels and descriptions such as stockholm syndrome, or social anxiety disorder and whatnot.
  - RevEng 2y ago
    Irrational behavior goes well beyond clinical mental disorders. There are dozens of known biases and heuristics that we all follow every day that are irrational. There's a big difference between disproportionately attributing blame and a mental disorder like Stockholm syndrome. Just look at any news post here and watch people make wild accusations against all parties involved based on a 500 word synopsis of an otherwise complicated incident that is still under investigation. It happens constantly.
potato3983 2y ago
In the moment it's not a question of fault or good vs bad. It's a question of who do you cast your lot in with in order to have a better chance of exiting the situation alive. Stuff like helping law enforcement or getting back at the bad guys only matters so long as it isn't likely to get you dead. You're valuable to the hostage takers so long as you're alive. Your continued existence is a nuisance to the police. But obviously the police with their infinite money and manpower have better odds on their side. Situation specific facts must be taken into consideration, etc, etc.
- mewpmewp2 2y ago
  These are all good explanations for the phenomena, and if you are being taken hostage, it is even rational to empathize with whoever took you hostage to maximize chances of your survival. I think the syndrome part is when you are out of that situation, but still continue to be kind to the hostage takers, and/or keep yourself intentionally in the dangerous situation to be with the hostage taker.
jjk166 2y ago
How can a rational person not? The police had the opportunity to deescalate, which would increase their chances of survival, and they chose not to. It would be like if a mugger stabbed you, and the ER surgeon refused to operate on you to save you - you can and should fault both. If I were ever in that situation, I would 100% fault the police for their behavior, and I would question the sanity of anyone who didn't.

GeoAtreides 2y ago

Surely the question is whose fault it is, but whose side offers more chances for survival; apparently, in this case, it was the wrong side.

lbwtaylor 2y ago
You can desire the police cooperate with the hostage takers, without taking the side of the hostage takers. The proof is in the pudding - the police ended the hostage taking with no lives lost. To after the fact continue to take the side of the hostage takers is pretty terrible to me. All of this is Olsson's fault.
- octopoc 2y ago
  What constitutes "taking the hostage takers' side"? She's not begging that the police release the perps, she's not saying that they were within their rights to rob the bank or anything like that. It's more complicated than just "she is taking the police's side" vs "she is taking the perps' side".
  - mewpmewp2 2y ago
    But the fact that she's talking fondly of the hostage takers is exactly the evidence of phenomena of the stockholm syndrome. Could police have done things better? For sure. Were they inexperienced with the hostage situation? Yeah. But to speak negatively of the people trying to diffuse the situation and positively of the hostage takers is what is definition of the stockholm syndrome, because clearly none of it would've happened if it wasn't for the hostage takers. The fact that she's not actively condemning the criminals and hostage takers speaks volumes to me.
    - gqcwwjtg 2y ago
      Maybe chill out on criticizing the reaction of someone involved in such a traumatic scenario where they’re not treated well by any side. It’s not what the article is about and it’s pretty gross.

engineer_22 2y ago

Humans aren't rational, they're made of flesh and blood.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
And for those irrational cases we have labels and descriptions such as stockholm syndrome, or social anxiety disorder and whatnot.
- RevEng 2y ago
  Irrational behavior goes well beyond clinical mental disorders. There are dozens of known biases and heuristics that we all follow every day that are irrational. There's a big difference between disproportionately attributing blame and a mental disorder like Stockholm syndrome. Just look at any news post here and watch people make wild accusations against all parties involved based on a 500 word synopsis of an otherwise complicated incident that is still under investigation. It happens constantly.

potato3983 2y ago

In the moment it's not a question of fault or good vs bad. It's a question of who do you cast your lot in with in order to have a better chance of exiting the situation alive. Stuff like helping law enforcement or getting back at the bad guys only matters so long as it isn't likely to get you dead. You're valuable to the hostage takers so long as you're alive. Your continued existence is a nuisance to the police. But obviously the police with their infinite money and manpower have better odds on their side. Situation specific facts must be taken into consideration, etc, etc.

mewpmewp2 2y ago
These are all good explanations for the phenomena, and if you are being taken hostage, it is even rational to empathize with whoever took you hostage to maximize chances of your survival. I think the syndrome part is when you are out of that situation, but still continue to be kind to the hostage takers, and/or keep yourself intentionally in the dangerous situation to be with the hostage taker.

jjk166 2y ago

How can a rational person not? The police had the opportunity to deescalate, which would increase their chances of survival, and they chose not to. It would be like if a mugger stabbed you, and the ER surgeon refused to operate on you to save you - you can and should fault both. If I were ever in that situation, I would 100% fault the police for their behavior, and I would question the sanity of anyone who didn't.