After reading several articles pertaining to the recent non-indictments of police officers whom killed unarmed black men, I was struck by a theme I observed in the comments section below the articles.
This theme was, "The cops would have done the same thing if the person was white."
Resorting to the hypothetical as a means for rationale is absurd on just about every level.
First off, we're comparing a real-life event with an imagined one.
Real-life event: "An unarmed black man was killed by a police officer."
Imagined event: "If the unarmed man had been white, he would have been killed by the police officer as well."
Try using that rationale in court sometime and see how far back the judge rolls his or her eyes. I just hope the judge's name isn't Linda Blair.
Secondly, and more importantly, studies show that these commentators are likely wrong from a numbers standpoint as well.
According to a ProPublica analysis, young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than young white males.
From 2010 to 2012, there were 1,217 deadly police shootings. Of these, 15- to 19-year old blacks were killed at the rate of 31.17 per million. This rate for 15- to 19-year old whites was 1.47 per million.
Going the hypothetical route for reasoning proves nothing. I see this form of reasoning (or lack there of) used quite regularly when it comes to gun violence.
Commentator: "Well, if the person had a knife instead of a gun, he would have killed all those people too."
That's unprovable, and odds (and science) would have it, not likely. The only thing the hypothetical-reasoning approach proves is that the commentator can't use any source in reality to prove his or her point. When one feels the need to go to fantasy to prove a point in reality, chances are there is no point in reality to prove his or her fantasy.
http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white
This theme was, "The cops would have done the same thing if the person was white."
Resorting to the hypothetical as a means for rationale is absurd on just about every level.
First off, we're comparing a real-life event with an imagined one.
Real-life event: "An unarmed black man was killed by a police officer."
Imagined event: "If the unarmed man had been white, he would have been killed by the police officer as well."
Try using that rationale in court sometime and see how far back the judge rolls his or her eyes. I just hope the judge's name isn't Linda Blair.
Secondly, and more importantly, studies show that these commentators are likely wrong from a numbers standpoint as well.
According to a ProPublica analysis, young black males are 21 times more likely to be shot and killed by police than young white males.
From 2010 to 2012, there were 1,217 deadly police shootings. Of these, 15- to 19-year old blacks were killed at the rate of 31.17 per million. This rate for 15- to 19-year old whites was 1.47 per million.
Going the hypothetical route for reasoning proves nothing. I see this form of reasoning (or lack there of) used quite regularly when it comes to gun violence.
Commentator: "Well, if the person had a knife instead of a gun, he would have killed all those people too."
That's unprovable, and odds (and science) would have it, not likely. The only thing the hypothetical-reasoning approach proves is that the commentator can't use any source in reality to prove his or her point. When one feels the need to go to fantasy to prove a point in reality, chances are there is no point in reality to prove his or her fantasy.
http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white
Comments
Post a Comment