971
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 May 2024
971 points (99.3% liked)
News
23367 readers
1812 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Well that's what the situation escalated to, yes, but what was the instigating factor. I know cops really don't need one in practice, but usually they at least make one up.
That's a very interesting question you're asking. Does the guilt lie with the police for the murder, or with the person that put him in the path of the cops? If you set a dog on children, and they get horribly mauled, is it the dogs fault? Does the guilt lie with the person pulling the switch, or with the lunatic that tied them to the trolley tracks in the first place?
I understand why the op here would reframe that question, as it could quite reasonably be interpreted as shifting responsibility for their actions away from the (quite guilty) cops. It's still a good question to ask though, especially in the current context of someone intentionally trying to dangle vulnerable people in front of the cops like a steak to a guard dog.
(Personally I think guilt lies with everyone, but that calculating the exact degree of EDIT (for clarity): I mean calculating each individual person's guilt, as in all of society. Just to clarify that the cops are absolutely guilty. But calculating the guilt of everyone in society is impossible.)
Both is an acceptable (and accurate) answer.
Most situations aren't entirely binary.
A key point in your statement is 'person'. Though it's not universal, humans are understood to have better... Well, understanding of their actions. A vicious dog doesn't understand that they're vicious, they just rip and tear. A human is supposed to have that inner monologue to say "No."
So, you release a dangerous animal on someone, you're at fault. You kill someone, you're at fault.
In George Floyd's case, the cop is responsible. 1000%. I've been in situations, I've pointed a gun and I waited. Even when someone might be rigged to blow, you don't just shoot them. Whomever called the cops isn't responsible because the Cop should've been expected to be a human and not some deity who can do no wrong. Yes, everyone in America at this point should know that cops aren't your friend but some people don't know that.
(I was taking a bit of a jab at cops by implying they aren't capable of free agency, which could have been more clear.)
I'm not sure if you understood my point. An absolutist approach isn't representative of the real world, which is fine because representations don't have to be perfect (by definition, I think). The question isn't where do you draw the line, as with all trolley problem questions it's why do you draw the line. Did the person who called the cops get him killed? Well, in an absolutist view, yes they did. They put him in the situation to get him killed. The cops are also guilty of killing him, as is the person who made the hypothetical counterfiet money.
But since we do not live in a truly accurate representation nor too a strict absolutist one, where do we draw that line? Its not a question of where in the legal code do we draw that line, or if their behavior was excusable or inexcusable, it's a question about how we determine the answer to those questions.
When someone commits crimes it is legal, ethical, moral, and reasonable that you call the cops on them. It's also reasonable to expect that the cops arrest them not summarily execute them. You can't make the people responsible for the cops behavior.
You are taking this a great deal more literally than I intended for it to be taken. This is a hypothetical question that asks how we decided that it is legal, ethical moral etc. to call the cops. It's not a question about the specifics of this case except where they serve to exemplify the concepts.
... I could have been more explicit about that, I realize.
It is legal ethical moral and reasonable to call the cops because it is the only practical way to make people stop breaking the law. If the cops don't want to be prosecuted or hated they can stop overreacting and hurting people. If the people want to avoid the risk of excess harm they can stop committing crimes or vote for politicians who hold cops accountable. None of this is my problem.