It seems that whenever I read an article regarding the police killing an unarmed person, at least one officer tells the press something along the lines of, "It's unknown at this time if the man had marijuana in his system" or "It's unknown at this time if he had been drinking alcohol." If it's unknown, why make such a statement? It's because they want to paint a certain picture inside the readers' minds and to provide themselves a potential excuse for the killing if it's later found that the victim was high or drunk. Sure, a person being high or drunk isn't, in and of itself, reason enough for a cop to kill a person. However, it would then provide them some leeway on their story-telling ability, as they could now say, "Well, the guy was drunk, angry, came after us, so what were we supposed to do? We feared for our lives and were just defending ourselves."
So, it may make some sense for a police officer to make such a statement in an attempt to limit backlash by providing more flexibility with their story-telling. However, from a rational person's perspective, it makes absolutely no sense at all. If information about the victim of a police killing is unknown, why should this "unknown" information get reported in the first place? That would be like me saying the following things in response to a similar situation:
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the victim ever punched his little brother when they were younger, or even if he has a brother."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the man had a serious health condition which led to his death, like asthma, heart problems, allergies, or color-blindness."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the victim kicked animals at petting zoos."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the man ever had a threesome with two men named Moe and Curly."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not our police department will admit we did wrong and do everything we can to prevent this from ever happening again."
So, it may make some sense for a police officer to make such a statement in an attempt to limit backlash by providing more flexibility with their story-telling. However, from a rational person's perspective, it makes absolutely no sense at all. If information about the victim of a police killing is unknown, why should this "unknown" information get reported in the first place? That would be like me saying the following things in response to a similar situation:
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the victim ever punched his little brother when they were younger, or even if he has a brother."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the man had a serious health condition which led to his death, like asthma, heart problems, allergies, or color-blindness."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the victim kicked animals at petting zoos."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not the man ever had a threesome with two men named Moe and Curly."
- "It's unknown at this time whether or not our police department will admit we did wrong and do everything we can to prevent this from ever happening again."
Comments
Post a Comment