Seeing the other person's point of view is less fun than being secure in one's partisanship.
For an "Easy Sunday" post, today I am going to avoid the hard work of showing why I think a fair-minded person would view the cases of Renee Nicole Good and Ashli Babbitt differently. There are distinctions between them, both moral and legal. I will do that another day.
The cases of Ashli Babbitt and Renee Good are enough alike that readers can learn something about bias, yours and mine. Seeing is not believing. Believing is seeing.
-- In both instances a White woman in young middle age was shot and killed by a law enforcement office doing his job.
-- In both instances the woman was not armed in the traditional sense, although cars can be weapons and Babbitt was carrying a knife and was surrounded by people using hard objects to break through doors and windows.
-- In both instances the woman was participating in a rowdy political protest.
-- In both instances the woman was in a space open to the public under normal circumstances.
-- In both instances the woman was told by police to leave an area while doing disruptive acts of the kind they were doing.
-- In both instances each woman was intentionally impeding law enforcement for a political cause with broad public support. In each instance a political faction believed sincerely that the laws that were being enforced -- certification of an election or immigration arrests -- were unjust and wrong.
-- In both instances there was shouting and pushing and harsh language directed at law enforcement by people surrounding the woman. The police reasonably felt themselves to be in a perilous position.
-- In both instances law enforcement people were there doing the jobs they were hired to do: protect Congressmen and carry out deportation arrests.
-- In both instances law enforcement had a positive duty to protect themselves and others. Failure to do that duty (like the Ulvalde, Texas school security guard who failed to try to stop the school shooter) would subject the law enforcement officer to sanctions.
-- In both instances the protesters were breaking the law: breaking through a Capitol door and window in one case and parking a car sideways in a street in the other.
-- In both instances the officers gave repeated warnings to leave.
-- In both instances there was videotape showing the circumstances of the shooting.
-- In both instance, the public response falls along partisan lines. People who thought the 2020 election was stolen from Trump argue that the protesters were unruly, sure, but basically doing legal patriotic protest, and therefore Ashli Babbitt should not have been shot while doing nothing seriously wrong. People who consider ICE's actions illegitimate consider protests like the one in Minneapolis to be unruly, sure, but basically legal patriotic protest, and therefore Renee Good should not have been shot while doing nothing seriously wrong.
-- In both instances, public opinion divided over culpability. If people thought the woman was impeding a good law, they think the shooter to be fully justified in defending himself and others. She had it coming. FAFO. People who think the law to be unjust think the woman was not a danger to anyone, and the shooting to be unjustified. It was murder.
My guest post on Friday shared advice from Raz Mason about staying alive in a police encounter. I will repeat it;
Civilians rarely experience an immediate, conscious realization of mortal danger. Initial responses often include denial, followed by automatic fight, flight, or freeze behaviors. Recognize your peril.
Civilian bottom line: In tense law-enforcement encounters, your safety depends on minimizing motion and maximizing clarity. Keep hands visible. Stop the vehicle completely. Ask calmly and clearly: “What do you want me to do -- stay still or exit?” Do not creep, turn wheels, or move unless instructions are unambiguous and the path clear.
Recognize that the protest is not all about you and your cause. Police officers on the scene have a point of view, too, and they are armed. They may be afraid of you and people around you. They may have hostile feelings toward you and your point of view, not improbably if people are shouting hostile insults at them. Don't give them a reason to shoot you. Do not let your sense of righteousness persuade you that other people surely see events as you do. Many will not.
Be polite. Protest legally and carefully.
[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog to your email go to: https://petersage.substack.com and subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]


5 comments:
It’s not just around law enforcement. I was thinking about Trayvon Martin and his tragic encounter with George Zimmerman who was acquitted. Interesting article about Stand Your Ground cases and increased gun fatalities.
I know this will be controversial but I think people who conceal-carry and are trained to use guns are more likely to use them because they see the world as a dangerous place and are prepared to use a gun as a first resort. And it seems laws are on their side.
Even in “liberal” Seattle I always assume others are armed and work to avoid confrontations that could escalate.
https://www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/USA/Society/2026/0107/homicide-guns-stand-your-ground-laws
Seeing the other side is something I wish Americans did more of, but it seems like hate radio, Fox News, and other right wing media outlets, doesn’t want to do that. It makes it hard to see the other side when it seems like they are so one sided.
Remember Robert LaVoy Finicum? Two Oregon State Police officers fatally shot him after he tried to get away, following the occupation of the Malheur Wildlife Refuge. People's opinion of that incident depended on their political point of view. Senator Wyden and Governor Brown were among the defendants in the wrongful death lawsuit stemming from that killing.
Ashli Babbit's family got a $5 million unlawful death settlement from the US government, indication that the government was wrong. Renee Nicole Good's family won't get a penny from the government, which means that she was in the wrong, and her family will have to settle for Go Fund Me donations instead. If we had more time, we could easily analyze why Babbit was innocent and Good was guilty.
From the writing style and content I am confident I know the author of the above comment, written, I believe, by a Medford Trump-supporting Republican. He is a useful window into the thinking of Trump supporters locally and nationwide. He overlooks issues he claims to care about (Trump's flagrant cronyism and grift) but focuses on a key element: that Republicans are sometimes good, but Democrats are very bad. Therefore, Republicans are free to cheat in elections if it confounds Democrats. Ashli Babbit was fighting for a good cause, according to Trump, and therefore this author who is slavishly Trump-ish in thinking and emotional maturity, and therefore Babbitt having been part of a crowd that broke through doors and windows to capture member of Congress is OK. If you start with the prior, that Trump is the good guy and anything he does is justified, then Ashli Babbitt is a hero and victim. That was why Trump's Justice Department made the settlement deal. She was fighting to help Trump overturn an election in his own favor; she was on the Trump team. Is it corrupt? Of course. But it was corruption for a cause the comment-author likes. To quote from a song from West Side Story: "When love comes so strong, there is no right or wrong." The author is a window into the mindset of Republicans in the Trump cult of loyalty.
Post a Comment