Originally Posted By ecdc If only Walter Scott had paid his back child support...maybe he'd still be alive. If only the U.S. had a better foreign policy...maybe 9/11 wouldn't have happened. If only Charlie Hebdo hadn't drawn those cartoons...maybe the shooting wouldn't have happened. If only she hadn't been wearing that dress and drinking so much.... Victim blaming is always ugly. None of us are perfect. Unfortunately, a few people break the law. It's an occupational hazard of being a cop. But to blame Walter Scott for his own death is pretty far out there, especially given that in this case his killer has been charged with murder.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer I don't think that it's assigning blame. I think it's looking at a situation and learning from it and trying to figure out how it could have ended differently. But to be honest there are certain choices or actions that we take that are far more likely to have disastrous consequences, and the fact is that most people understand the risk of those choices and they don't do them.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip If he paid his child-support he gets a fix-it ticket and goes on his merry way. If he doesn't run from the cop he doesn't get shot. Sure, the cop shouldn't have shot. But let's not forget who the biggest idiot is here. The dead guy.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Being an idiot is not supposed to be a capital offense. The guy shouldn't have run. But he did. At that point, the cop can either arrest him later - he has his address and his car, for God's sake - or if he must pursue, simply outrun the guy, who was not in great shape. Instead, he shoots him in the back as he's running away, then plants evidence. The guy who ran may be an idiot, but let's not even flirt with false equivalency here, okay? I can think of a lot worse names for the cop who shot him. And I'm not saying that's all cops or anything like that. But unless something else surfaces, it sure as hell was this one.
Originally Posted By Wendy Pleakley The biggest idiot ISN'T the cop who murdered someone by shooting him in the back?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip More criminal than idiot. And if not for the cell phone video he would have gotten away with it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>If he doesn't run from the cop he doesn't get shot.<< How do we know that? The cop shot him multiple times in the back then planted evidence. Captured on video, no less. I don't think he was following SOP, so let's not assume he was in a mind to do the right thing regardless of what his victim did.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer Nature selects against idiocy. It isn't a capital offense to be an idiot, but you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of natural selection more often than not when you make a cascading series of bad decisions in your life.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 < It isn't a capital offense to be an idiot> It was in this case. That's kind of the disconnect, and the point. And why (unless there's more to be seen that hasn't been seen yet) this cop needs to be convicted so that the next idiot who runs when he shouldn't merely gets run after or arrested later, rather than killed.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>It was in this case. That's kind of the disconnect, and the point.<< Right. I'm amazed so few people seem to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Thinking that he shouldn't have been shot in the back is not the same as thinking he made the right decision and should've just got off free. I can think he shouldn't have run *and* that the officer who shot him down should be charged with murder. Part of the problem again is the focus on micro behavior instead of the macro situation. Cooperating with police is not a solution to the systemic problem of police overreaction and violence. Saying otherwise is like telling me locking my doors at night solves crime. I lock my doors at night to reduce the risk of being a victim of a robbery or other crime. But I'm not under any illusions that doing so somehow solves all crime. Walter Scott not running means he's still alive. It doesn't mean there's suddenly no systemic problem with police behavior.
Originally Posted By ecdc From Ta-Nehisi Coates's Twitter: Incarceration rate for France 96 per 100k Russia 568 per 100k America 700 per 100k African-American 2285 per 100k AA men 4749 per 100k
Originally Posted By utahjosh Thinking that he shouldn't have been shot in the back is not the same as thinking he made the right decision and should've just got off free.> May I add that saying "he shouldn't have run and probably wouldn't have been shot if he didn't" is not the same as saying he deserved to be shot. (I'm thinking more in general, not in this horrendous specific case)
Originally Posted By TomSawyer "Cooperating with police is not a solution to the systemic problem of police overreaction and violence. Saying otherwise is like telling me locking my doors at night solves crime." An individual having a personal interaction with the police isn't going to have any effect on the system problem of police overreaction and violence, regardless of what they do. The grand theories about how things are supposed to be are great, but in that situation your primary job is to come out of it on the other side without a bullet or taser darts in your body. You can get worked up about philosophy and legislative action later. It's pragmatism, about surviving for another day. Locking your doors doesn't solve crime, it just displaces it. But you need to keep yourself focused on your own safety and if someone else is choosing to open their homes to thieves all the better for you.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Comes uncomfortably close to victim-blaming for me. Is it a good idea for a woman to wear an outfit with a plunging neckline on a first date with a man she's never met before? I dunno. But if that guy rapes her, that's on HIM, not on her. There's no equivalency here. The guy shouldn't have run. The cop shouldn't have shot him in the back 8 times and killed him. Yes, both those things can be true. But one is so much more consequential than the other, and so much more egregious than the other, that even putting them in the same paragraph conjures up false equivalency that is not warranted.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip What the cop SHOULD have done is largely irrelevant here because he didn't. We are talking about self-preservation here. As for the woman in your example, no she should not be raped. On the other hand, she isn't dressed very sensibly for a first date with a man she's never met. People can't go along living in some make-believe world where nothing ever happens that shouldn't happen. If they do they may end up raped or dead.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I guess that until we solve the endemic problem of psychopathic and murderous police officers that it would be a good idea to not do "unwise" things. Ain't things grand in "The Land of the Free"? While we think about that, here is something to ponder: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/apr/15/addicting-information/liberal-blog-us-cops-killed-more-people-one-month-/">http://www.politifact.com/pund...-month-/</a>
Originally Posted By fkurucz ^^And I posted this story, because it challenges the claim, though it did not offer what would be considered a valid number for UK shootings.
Originally Posted By EighthDwarf Is it fair to say that our police are more prone to lethally attack someone because they feel their lives are in greater danger with all of guns floating around in this country? Let's face it, our country is a war zone. Look at all of the gun violence our police need to be ready for. Is it any wonder our police are mirroring the violence they combat?
