Answer to what? It so happens that I did read it, which was painful and difficult due to pastel blue text on a white background…
It’s a poor analogy to somebody who has a weapon who otherwise has nothing to do with you. The article’s whole premise is predicated upon everything being communication, which gets quite glib when the prescription is, in effect, “If I’m in public and I’ll think you look scary, you should stay home.” It’s understandable, but fatuous. This indicates that because she fears something, that the whole public is obliged to read her mind and adapt to her personal insecurities. And it’s completely unreasonable when you consider that other members of society with equal rights can have personal insecurities which are contrary to yours, and mandate a different course of action. It is an attitude of pre-emptive violence, which carries it’s own internalized self-justification. And people allow it with a troubling double-standard - socially-conscious liberals sympathize with women not wanting to be raped - but if it was a cop spraying a stranger because they “looked suspicious” they’d be horrified. It is the same thought process at work here.
To “set my own risk tolerance”, I in turn need to “conduct my own risk assessment” - and if I get this wrong and pepper spray the wrong people, or call a SWAT team to take down somebody who had a gun over their shoulder - then I am responsible for having caused someone harm, regardless if whether I assumed it might be justified. And again we see a recurrence of projecting our emotions onto other people with non-advice such as “you must be aware of what signals you are sending by your appearance and the environment” which is a way of normalizing your standards and your fears into an assumed social protocol for those around you. Effectively making yourself “the center of the world”, which is an essentially infantile behavior - it is easy to understand, but it is also fundamentally anti-social. It’s also a prescription for being indirect and requiring lots of guesswork, since we should “Learn to understand and respect women’s communication to you.” - despite the explanation that this should usually be gleaned from indirect, unspoken cues. This refers back to what I was remarking upon with regards to making personal problems with people where none may exist - other people may be obliged to respect your space, as you communicate it to them, but it is not reasonable to expect them to be mind-readers simply because you find it convenient. As advice for avoiding unwanted conversations, it’s quite good. But not as a justification for pre-emptively assaulting somebody. It’s about as good as “they looked at me funny”.
And, FWIW I have been, at times, sexually assaulted - by men and women. And fought off attempted muggings - by men and women. And been around armed urban conflicts. So my perspective here is not mere armchair speculation.
I’d hate to think you were trying to single me out, or “characterize” me in a certain light - rather than honestly engage in the communication of ideas…
Unfortunately with body cams things seem to get even murkier. Did the person running from the officer drop a gun? Or merely the phone the officer saw him pull out of his pocket at the begging of the video?
“Seventy years of beating the odds of never having been arrested — a black man. Served in the military for 20 years. Worked with the police, because you do that as a bus driver. And here he is standing on the corner,” Mason said. “He ends up handcuffed and put in a police wagon and put in jail overnight. The system failed this man. He never should have been stopped. Once he got to the precinct, reason should have prevailed.”
SEE! At least the police are working on it! They managed to not scream “PUT THE WEAPON DOWN MOTHERFUCKER!!!” Then shoot him dead because he moved to quickly. Baby steps.
Well, it’s more like he was lucky enough to run into one of the racist-but-not-out-to-kill police instead of one of the racist-and-out-to-kill police (or the not-particularly-personally-racist-but-definitely-out-to-kill-and-kills-black-people-because-you-can-get-away-with-that-so-essentially-racist-for-all-useful-purposes police).
Hang on…I’ve followed your article to a couple of others, and can’t find any reference to a dog itself being responsible. There are oblique references to a K9 handler as being part of the arrest, that’s all. Where did you learn that Mr. White was attacked by a police dog?
so it’s maybe not clear what killed him specifically - the dog bites, the punches from the officer, or being restrained face down, but there’s ample evidence of excessive force
Frankie Boyle: “A lot of racism comes from projection. White Americans have a stereotype of black people being criminals purely because they can’t acknowledge that it was often white people that stole them from Africa in the first place. Today, you have the spectacle of black men being gunned down by cops who, by way of mitigation, release footage to show that the victims were running away. This is what happens when you don’t understand or even acknowledge history. You end up in a situation where, when slavery is the elephant in the room in your relationship with African Americans, you think it’s OK to say that you killed one of them because he was trying to escape.”
If there’s a gun-carrying cop in my vicinity, I will be constantly cautious and aware of them too.
Nothing irrational about it; if there’s a person near me who is carrying a killing machine, then keeping an eye on what they’re doing with that machine is just sensible.
Especially in a public situation, I have no way to distinguish in advance between dangerous and non-dangerous gun carriers. Most of 'em aren’t a threat, but the ones who are don’t carry neon signs declaring that they are.
Similarly, when I’m on the road, I closely monitor nearby vehicles that are a potential threat to me. You don’t survive long on a bike if you don’t.
Dangerous vs non-dangerous is not just a matter of mass-shooting drama. It’s also the drunk idiot hunter who is careless with his rifle; the power-tripping cop looking for an excuse to assert their authority; the “self defence” parent who leaves their pistol within reach of their toddler. In all of these cases, there is no way to distinguish danger without constant monitoring.
But I would prefer not to have to maintain that level of vigilance 24/7. It’s a pain in the arse, culturally harmful and should not be required in a civilised society.
