3 ms·
A disturbing number of people immediately stopped having any sympathy the moment they found out that e.g. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store or t
by theorique 11y ago
A disturbing number of people immediately stopped having any sympathy the moment they found out that e.g. Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store or that Eric Garner was selling cigarettes illegally. They would generally not come out and say that people deserve summary execution for these crimes, but that is essentially the argument that they end up making.
It's less that these men "deserved" death for what they did or didn't do, and more that they made decisions that spiraled out of control and led to unfortunate consequences - in Brown's case, physically attacking an armed police officer; in Garner's case, refusing to go along with police when asked ("resisting arrest"). Neither crime is punishable by death, but when you take actions that lead to police escalating use of force [1], the consequences are unpredictable and generally not going to be good.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_force_continuum
- mikeash 11y agoThat's a different thing altogether. I have problems with that approach as well, but it's not what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about people who literally cease to care about Brown's and Garner's deaths the moment they found out that they were criminals. Not even getting into the specific police interactions, just straight to "well, he had just robbed a convenience store, so who cares?" I understand that you presumably don't believe that, but I saw a lot of people who did.
- theorique 11y agoAgreed, that kind of extremely binary thinking about "CRIMINALS" and "NORMAL PEOPLE" is not helpful.
- hsod 11y agoHave you considered the possibility that these people don't exist (or exist in very small numbers), and you've decided there are a lot of them due to some kind of confirmation bias?
- mikeash 11y agoYes, but I (obviously) don't think that's actually what's happening. Why do you bring it up?
- hsod 11y agoBecause I think that is what's happening. You have acknowledged that there are some nuanced reasons that knowledge of crimes committed by these men might change one's perception of the incidents. You then refer to a non-specific, large group of people who's reaction to that knowledge completely lacks nuance. From this, you conclude these people are simple-minded hate-machines and lament their existence. It seems to me much more likely that you failed to understand the nuance in their opinions, because you lacked either the willingness or the ability to relate to them and the way they think.
- mikeash 11y agoI've seen many people state this opinion, sometimes in nearly the exact words I "quoted" above. It's possible that they're very small in number and I just happened to encounter a large proportion of them, but I think it's unlikely. That's my basis for saying that. What's your basis for saying your alternative is more likely? It looks to me like you have substantially less to go on for your statement than I do for mine.
- logfromblammo 11y agoI have also considered the possibility that rational people do not exist, and that counting myself as one of them is an irrational conclusion based upon faulty evidence.
- guelo 11y agoWhat bothers me about this type of argument is that it makes it sound like they weren't dealing with police but with some kind of dangerous rabid animal. Police are supposed to be highly trained professionals, part of their job is to know how to deescalate dangerous situations. If they immediately escalate minor violent situations into dead bodies then they are bad at their job and we as taxpayers should make sure they are at least fired for doing such an awful job.