I remember thinking, back in 2009 when Oscar Grant was killed, that it would be an open-and-shut case because there was video evidence. Multiple people filmed the killing. It was irrefutable,...
I remember thinking, back in 2009 when Oscar Grant was killed, that it would be an open-and-shut case because there was video evidence. Multiple people filmed the killing. It was irrefutable, plain as day, on camera.
That was wishful thinking on my part. We've learned, in the decade since then, time and time again, month after month, death after death, that even when the truth is clearly captured, in high definition, from multiple corroborating perspectives and sources, with audio, that it is simply not enough. Those videos get shared with the world, for everyone to see, millions of eyes upon incontrovertible evidence, and it is still not enough. It leaves us with the question: what will be enough? What has to happen in order for these to be seen, plainly, for what they are?
I don't have an answer to that. I don't know that anyone does.
I agree with your general point that the internet often reacts to things before it can possibly understand the context, but in this specific scenario I don't think the context changes anything....
I agree with your general point that the internet often reacts to things before it can possibly understand the context, but in this specific scenario I don't think the context changes anything.
Obviously it's subjective, but on a scale from 1 (no threat at all) to 10 (I need to call the police right now), the context of the Christian Cooper story brings it to about a 2. A reasonable reaction, at most, would be to say "what the fuck, don't threaten me", and walk away while keeping your eye on him. "I will come at you like a fucking wolverine." would not be a reasonable reaction.
And in the George Floyd case, even if it was revealed later that he did resist arrest as the officers allege (which, to be clear, absolutely none of the video footage released so far suggests was...
And in the George Floyd case, even if it was revealed later that he did resist arrest as the officers allege (which, to be clear, absolutely none of the video footage released so far suggests was the case, even the new heavily redacted bodycam footage), it still doesn't justify the officer kneeling on his neck for over 9 minutes, ignoring his pleas and cries of "I can't breath", until he finally asphyxiated to death. No amount of additional context will make what happened to Mr. Floyd suddenly seem acceptable, excusable, understandable, or justified.
No worries, I didn't read your comment as trying to downplay the Floyd case or anything, and you did make some good points about modern outrage culture... I just wanted to make it clear that in...
No worries, I didn't read your comment as trying to downplay the Floyd case or anything, and you did make some good points about modern outrage culture... I just wanted to make it clear that in that particular case, IMO the outrage seems entirely justified.
How many police officers are indicted by grand juries?
Very few. According to studies, US police officers kill approximately 1,000 citizens per year in the line of duty. On average, four officers are indicted for causing gun-related deaths on duty every year, according to a study by Bowling Green State University in Ohio.
In one sample, grand juries in Harris County, Texas, haven’t indicted a police officer in a decade. Grand juries in Dallas looked at 81 possible cases of police criminality between 2008 and 2012, but handed down only one indictment, according to the Houston Chronicle.
To be clear, I am not advocating for mob justice... but how much more of this systemic injustice can people in the African American community honestly be expected to take?
I think that's downplaying it a bit much. As the article notes, in addition to the racial components of this specific incident, there's a gendered component as well. Women in public frequently...
I think that's downplaying it a bit much. As the article notes, in addition to the racial components of this specific incident, there's a gendered component as well. Women in public frequently have to deal with men accosting them, cat-calling them, or otherwise trying to express some claim to their bodies or personhood. Underneath this is the latent threat of widespread violence against women, as well as the potential for retaliatory responses should the women respond negatively. Every woman I know regularly has to manage and even negotiate her safety relative to men in public in ways that I, as a male, do not.
His veiled threat moved the likelihood of harm for her from the faintest of possibilities into something far more likely. Plus, the fact that he then went after her dog is doubly bad, as harming pets is an abuser signifier -- an additional and major red flag.
I'll note that I'm not saying this to paint him as a villain and her as the hero. I think that's way too simple of a take for a complicated and fraught situation like this. This doesn't take away from the situation's racial aspects which are also valid, nor does it justify her continual escalation after the fact. I'm saying this only to note that I can understand how a vague threat from a male stranger followed by what appears to be an attempt to go after their animal could put a woman significantly on edge -- well above a 2 out of 10.
I'm a white woman, and here is my take: Before the video started filming - sure. Amy may have reasonably felt threatened. If she had just put her dog on a leash and then walked away, I would say...
Exemplary
I'm a white woman, and here is my take:
Before the video started filming - sure. Amy may have reasonably felt threatened. If she had just put her dog on a leash and then walked away, I would say that they were both equally wrong - I doubt Christian would have confronted a man his own size like that. But then park rules exist so that individuals shouldn't need to fight it out like this - Amy should have just had her damn dog on a lead to begin with.
But by the time the video is filming, it's clear that Amy does not have any reason to feel physically threatened by Christian - and it's obvious from her body language that she doesn't. He is the one repeatedly asking her to maintain a safe distance between the two of them. He is standing still, and she is approaching him.
Amy didn't call the cops because she was scared. She called the cops because she was angry. She very strategically and dishonestly used racial inequality as a weapon to try and win a petty park squabble over putting a leash on her dog.
This was about power. If she wanted to protect herself she would have just put the leash on her damn dog (something she only did after the dog yelped - she was strangling that dog out of stubbornness because she didn't want to give in to Christian's request).
Yes, women do have to navigate public spaces with a latent threat of violence, and I appreciate that you acknowledge it. But so do black men in America. Christian indirectly benefited from his privileged during the confrontation - but Amy very deliberately lied to police to try and enforce her white privilege, in a way that could have seen Christian shot or incarcerated.
I get what you mean but I don't think there's too much point to speculating on the validity of her feeling threatened because this entire situation screams "not enough info." The missing context...
I get what you mean but I don't think there's too much point to speculating on the validity of her feeling threatened because this entire situation screams "not enough info." The missing context of his body language, physical distance from her, etc. can entirely change how reasonable a reaction she had, and this is exactly the sort of scenario that people successfully overplay in court all the time.
Yeah, I was trying to speak more abstractly about public interactions with strangers in general than about Amy Cooper specifically. I actually think there's enough info here that we can find her...
Yeah, I was trying to speak more abstractly about public interactions with strangers in general than about Amy Cooper specifically. I actually think there's enough info here that we can find her at fault for a lot and criticize how she handled things, which @ibis covered really well in her response.
I remember thinking, back in 2009 when Oscar Grant was killed, that it would be an open-and-shut case because there was video evidence. Multiple people filmed the killing. It was irrefutable, plain as day, on camera.
That was wishful thinking on my part. We've learned, in the decade since then, time and time again, month after month, death after death, that even when the truth is clearly captured, in high definition, from multiple corroborating perspectives and sources, with audio, that it is simply not enough. Those videos get shared with the world, for everyone to see, millions of eyes upon incontrovertible evidence, and it is still not enough. It leaves us with the question: what will be enough? What has to happen in order for these to be seen, plainly, for what they are?
I don't have an answer to that. I don't know that anyone does.
I agree with your general point that the internet often reacts to things before it can possibly understand the context, but in this specific scenario I don't think the context changes anything.
Obviously it's subjective, but on a scale from 1 (no threat at all) to 10 (I need to call the police right now), the context of the Christian Cooper story brings it to about a 2. A reasonable reaction, at most, would be to say "what the fuck, don't threaten me", and walk away while keeping your eye on him. "I will come at you like a fucking wolverine." would not be a reasonable reaction.
And in the George Floyd case, even if it was revealed later that he did resist arrest as the officers allege (which, to be clear, absolutely none of the video footage released so far suggests was the case, even the new heavily redacted bodycam footage), it still doesn't justify the officer kneeling on his neck for over 9 minutes, ignoring his pleas and cries of "I can't breath", until he finally asphyxiated to death. No amount of additional context will make what happened to Mr. Floyd suddenly seem acceptable, excusable, understandable, or justified.
No worries, I didn't read your comment as trying to downplay the Floyd case or anything, and you did make some good points about modern outrage culture... I just wanted to make it clear that in that particular case, IMO the outrage seems entirely justified.
But TBH, I am not so sure that a trial will actually result in justice being served here. See: The Eric Garner case, in which the officer involved was acquitted despite very similar circumstances as occurred in this new case. Also: https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/1209/Eric-Garner-case-101-Why-grand-juries-rarely-indict-police-officers
To be clear, I am not advocating for mob justice... but how much more of this systemic injustice can people in the African American community honestly be expected to take?
It affects different ethnicities in different ways, but it's important to remember that injustice for one affects us all.
I think that's downplaying it a bit much. As the article notes, in addition to the racial components of this specific incident, there's a gendered component as well. Women in public frequently have to deal with men accosting them, cat-calling them, or otherwise trying to express some claim to their bodies or personhood. Underneath this is the latent threat of widespread violence against women, as well as the potential for retaliatory responses should the women respond negatively. Every woman I know regularly has to manage and even negotiate her safety relative to men in public in ways that I, as a male, do not.
His veiled threat moved the likelihood of harm for her from the faintest of possibilities into something far more likely. Plus, the fact that he then went after her dog is doubly bad, as harming pets is an abuser signifier -- an additional and major red flag.
I'll note that I'm not saying this to paint him as a villain and her as the hero. I think that's way too simple of a take for a complicated and fraught situation like this. This doesn't take away from the situation's racial aspects which are also valid, nor does it justify her continual escalation after the fact. I'm saying this only to note that I can understand how a vague threat from a male stranger followed by what appears to be an attempt to go after their animal could put a woman significantly on edge -- well above a 2 out of 10.
I'm a white woman, and here is my take:
Before the video started filming - sure. Amy may have reasonably felt threatened. If she had just put her dog on a leash and then walked away, I would say that they were both equally wrong - I doubt Christian would have confronted a man his own size like that. But then park rules exist so that individuals shouldn't need to fight it out like this - Amy should have just had her damn dog on a lead to begin with.
But by the time the video is filming, it's clear that Amy does not have any reason to feel physically threatened by Christian - and it's obvious from her body language that she doesn't. He is the one repeatedly asking her to maintain a safe distance between the two of them. He is standing still, and she is approaching him.
Amy didn't call the cops because she was scared. She called the cops because she was angry. She very strategically and dishonestly used racial inequality as a weapon to try and win a petty park squabble over putting a leash on her dog.
This was about power. If she wanted to protect herself she would have just put the leash on her damn dog (something she only did after the dog yelped - she was strangling that dog out of stubbornness because she didn't want to give in to Christian's request).
Yes, women do have to navigate public spaces with a latent threat of violence, and I appreciate that you acknowledge it. But so do black men in America. Christian indirectly benefited from his privileged during the confrontation - but Amy very deliberately lied to police to try and enforce her white privilege, in a way that could have seen Christian shot or incarcerated.
I get what you mean but I don't think there's too much point to speculating on the validity of her feeling threatened because this entire situation screams "not enough info." The missing context of his body language, physical distance from her, etc. can entirely change how reasonable a reaction she had, and this is exactly the sort of scenario that people successfully overplay in court all the time.
Yeah, I was trying to speak more abstractly about public interactions with strangers in general than about Amy Cooper specifically. I actually think there's enough info here that we can find her at fault for a lot and criticize how she handled things, which @ibis covered really well in her response.