Not “all”. Just “disproportionately”.
Or “Police shoot white man”, for that matter.
People will go to some lengths not to mention race even when it is relevant - in issuing alerts, for instance. BOLO for someone, but we won’t mention one of the obvious identifiers. :smack:
Regards,
Shodan
And which, in your experience, is more common and has a more significant impact: people mentioning race when it isn’t relevant, or people not mentioning race when it is?
Similarly here: I’d wonder why the hell the race of the victim/suspect was in the headline, then I’d check to see if I’d stumbled into some right-wing news site by accident.
So AFAIAC, the OP is polling a good question, but has the wrong range of possible answers.
Wording/word choice doesn’t matter; around here most times if its reported with race included it is unjustified. If it is a case where a cop shoots someone and there is no doubt about it being a “good shoot” it is reported in a more neutral way such as “Police shot a suspect today”.
Much too late, but if I could edit the OP question it would be something more generalized like: When you hear or read of an incident in which the police have shot a black man, what is your first reaction? Using a “headline”, I think, got people too much hung up on the wording.
It depends on who I’m talking to.
When the police shoot somebody, should the media mention the race? Of the police, the person who got shot, both, or neither?
Regards,
Shodan
None of the above. My first reaction would be, “Not enough facts known to form an opinion. More likely than not to have some sort of spin on it.” Direction of spin is dependent on the particular outlet.
I didn’t read all of the posts before submitting my own and missed the edit window.
I don’t know whether Alessan actually thinks that way or not but…wow. If its in the news it’s probably unjustified? That’s putting an awful lot of blind faith in the media. As it turns out, some of the most highly publicized shootings ended up with no charges against the officers or acquittal at trial.
Any person shot by police usually was posing a lethal threat the public and to the police.
Sadly mistakes do get made. They are rare. Police officers can’t read minds and sometimes they reach the wrong conclusion.
A disturbed man wildly waving a phone around might look like a man with a gun, on a dark night.
This here. I"m doing my best to envision myself reading such a stupid headline and what my reaction to it would be, but I can’t say I would have any feelings whether it was justified or unjustified based on the headline itself. I think I’d mostly be bemused, but read the story before I started thinking anything one way or another.
Or they were black.
Yes, usually the intention is to shoot someone.
A black man minding his own business might also look like a disturbed man wildly waving around a phone that looks like a gun.
I find it intriguing that for all their talk of needing guns to “defend against tyranny” or even their inherent 2nd Amendment right to brandish one about, conservatives are very forgiving when police make “mistakes”.
The poll responses are also lacking. My response to hearing that a police officer killed a black man is that police actions need to be scrutinized and that American police are very quick to kill civilians when compared to other nations and that we have been giving police far too much leeway to use force.
I’m not sure what the obession is about making this a race thing.
Criminals wear hoodies and sometimes ski masks. The cops don’t know who they are chasing late at night. They are chasing a criminal. Eventually they may see his hands.
A lot of shootings happen when people do incredibly stupid crap. Thankfully, in this case, he lived another day to steal again.
I’m not sure why today’s career criminals want to fight it out. Getting busted used to be the price of doing business.
My first reaction would be to wonder if he was armed or not. And if not, I’d shake my head and wish yet again that people were taught to drop anything (except a baby) they’re holding when confronted by police.
I was never taught that. I bet most white folks were never taught that. On the few occasions I’ve been confronted by police, I’ve never dropped anything, nor did they say or do anything that suggested that was a problem.
You might want to read the thread title.
My first thought is we’re due for months of arguing about it with the loudest voices on both sides being entirely immune to the facts of the case.
Exactly as **Ambivalid **said: Their agenda of “being sensational and trying to gin up faux-controversy.”
I really can’t choose between these two. My split-second conclusion … simply doesn’t exist. I don’t allow myself to make conclusions without some facts.
As for my split-second reaction, there would be many including (as others have suggested) “this is almost certainly in the US”, “this journalism is terrible” and “I wonder if the race is actually relevant, or is just convenient for a popular narrative”.
I can’t abide by anyone who presumes guilt or innocence without taking the time to learn what happened, and to think critically about that information.