Jordan Neely wasn't killed on purpose.
To those who picked that up someplace (I'm looking at you mayonnaise media), if they honestly believe that, I guess I get their angst.
But, if they're ignoring the fact that an honest effort was made to quell an ambiguous threat that went horribly wrong with an ill-advised chokehold, then I can't have sympathy for the intellectual void that would settle someone on anger toward the marine. Such an intellect just wants to be angry and any headline will do.
What I am is sad for the man who died, for there not being a culture and a system that would have intercepted him through help or containment, and for the marine who at this point I more reasonably believe was just looking to help in a situation that was contextually threatening and chaotic. Enough to compel him.
I don't think that the marine reached out to stop a man from insinuating threats alone, as that would make no sense. He probably had reason to believe that some actual physical attack was imminent. He may have miscalculated that probability (though based on the dead man's police record, probably not) but that's not on him -- a mix of people would interpret the situation differently given the dead man's behavior.
A tragedy for both parties and any collective anger needs to be directed at every reason that guy was walking around freely, particularly given his past. Those reasons, whatever they are, are the deficit -- not the marine who unwisely got involved the way that he did.
As an aside, have you noticed that every single media house that publishes on about this story fails to land on this most direct and innocuous angle? That's because $$$. The rationale coverage appealing to reasonable people is not profitable.
It would make so much more sense for Elon Musk to label for-profit media entity Twitter accounts than non-profit ones for this very reason.
By Dave for Personal Blog.
civildecomposition humanity humanity
Comments (0) | Promote (0) | PermShare | Focuses (109)
Hi all, I was away from computers and the news for the entire period, helping a friend move, when this horrible thing happened. I am safe, but thank you for all the concern and messages.
You can imagine that something like this happening local to me would have had me all over it with respect to ground journalism and online ranting philosophies in wake of, the actual lack of which, raised alarm bells as to my well-being.
As it is, and probably for the better, I am just a horrified member of the regular audience digesting in what I can from the regular post-analysis news. I have seen some clips of the since-pulled videos of the shooter's livestream and find myself wanting to personally strangle the man responsible. The anger has no bottom on this one.
By Dave for for BuffScan.
announcements buffscan humanity
Comments (0) | Promote (0) | PermShare | Focuses (1136)
This guy's (Antonio Williams, the guy interviewed in the video) patient reasoning about police shootings is exactly how I feel in most cases. Notice how he doesn't presume individual police officers to be bad murderous-intending people, but rightly blames the training and conversely the lack of imagination and will to pursue non-lethal methods and time for de-escalation (worded that way because police have always understood de-escalation, what they don't do is budget for it in real-time crisis handling).
This man will enrage those who hate police and genuinely believe all officers roam the streets with a mindset to kill. But you have to leave those people behind as much as you have to leave behind people who believe law enforcement can do no better than violence in crisis handling.
By Dave for Personal Blog.
Comments (0) | Promote (0) | PermShare | Focuses (1205)
First, the video:
Now my commentary...
I don't know that the OP's take on the tiny home solution is really fair. People who fall into homelessness aren't chiefly looking for community; they're looking for safety and stability.
When you ask the homeless -- not the anti-rule homeless this video largely orbits, but the layer above that -- a top reason cited for not using existing homeless shelters is personal safety. A cop at the head of a field of cots is not "safety" in those places. That rudimentary approach just doesn't cut it for too many.
The intense security of these tiny home lots, which the video's producer finds so dismaying, is likely an attempt to address that very issue.
Also, I believe research has shown that the instability of moving from homeless shelter to homeless shelter or otherwise coping with homelessness creates its own problem since there can be no stable interface to a job. That interwound insecurity just perpetuates the crisis.
The idea of the tiny home community is to remove that instability and provide a strong integral platform for people to begin clawing themselves out successfully -- something I imagine takes years, not the mere length of time granted by an analytical eye.
Getting the tiny home concept actualized is monumental enough but to suddenly step back and "move the goal post" by declaring that, oh, now it needs to also be a place of community and of more discretionary security or something, is just so unfair. I actually think that a sense of community can in fact emerge anyway, and where the security is concerned, it is needed for good honest homeless people to thrive again.
There should be nobody on the streets, but if there has to be a line, yes, it can be at where the people decide that the "rules" are too much for them. Romanticizing tent encampments as places that should not be touched to honor the anti-rule homeless just so isn't helping anything. :/
By Dave for Personal Blog.
Comments (0) | Promote (0) | PermShare | Focuses (1590)