788967F7-C0F5-4095-B48C
Universally Unique!
No bio...
User ID: 682
p
788967F7-C0F5-4095-B48C
Universally Unique!
User ID: 682
p
Universally Unique!
User ID: 682
Universally Unique!
No bio...
User ID: 682
If we assume a fixed fact pattern for the encounter, yeah, it makes sense that prior encounters the officers weren't aware of can't change whether or not their reaction was justified. Of course, his being a ICU nurse or whatever is also irrelevant from that standpoint.
However, it seems like in a lot of situations like this, what the facts of the matter were (and which are important) is at least a little ambiguous. Our interpretation of events is colored by the purported character of the parties involved and the narratives at play. Was he a trained nurse trying to help a woman in need or an armed, repeated belligerent trying to 'micro intifada' a fellow insurrectionist and subsequently resist arrest?
There's also a broader question: much of the left's rhetorical framing around police violence is "it could happen to you & your loved ones." But, in point of fact, neither I nor any of my loved ones have made a hobby of harassing police. If violence is only dolled out to folks engaged in blatantly lawless actions or even just those ambiguously-right-at-the-boundary-of-protected protest, then I have absolutely nothing to fear from law enforcement, since I have never deliberately impeded the lawful discharge of their duties and, absent an open civil war or blatantly genocidal actions, can not imagine I'd ever do so.
The framing in that last paragraph is really important to understand the 'auth' reaction to a lot of this. If there are bright-line rules that serve a legitimate state interest, that are easy to know and be on the right side of, that rarely harm anyone but repeated, anti-social malfeasors... well, empathy is a limited resource — both psychologically and especially in terms of informing policy — and there are many who are more deserving.
More options
Context Copy link