That is the one thing that starts to enrage me about the fediverse; once the local hivemind decided something no amount of discussion or information is allowed. No more critical thinking even though most likely we would reach the same conclusions…
Did the hive mind really decide cops should in no context go to an individual & punch them in the face, or is that just an universal logical thought known to the majority about public servants?
The law doesn’t mandate face-punching.
If someone breaks the law, there are other prescribed procedural consequences (literal procedures in law that describe what law enforcement needs to do). Not some sadistic ronin desperado impersonating justice as they individually see fit outside the context of law.
If someone is guiltily of something, "a slap on the wrist’ is a metaphor, not a literal means of dispensing justice directly by the law enforcement on the spot.
(Also reserved for those with power & who massively break the law, but that is another convo.)
Person has a bomb in a public place. Cop punches that person in the face, and takes control of the bomb. That would be one example of context in which a cop punching someone would be valid.
This is why context is important, because taking a snap shot of something is never the whole picture. If the cop is in the wrong, I want the whole picture. Not just the part you say is relevant. For example, did the cop punch anyone else before or after punching her?
Without going into technicalities there’s the notion of reasonable force and proportional response and all that which is literally bound to the context of an event.
But you miss my point; I’m not discussing the event depicted here specifically. I’m criticising the lack of critical thinking and openness to arguments.
Reaching the conclusion that this cop mustn’t have punched that particular person for the exact context should not be taboo. We should be, in full understanding of the situation, condemning it.
That is the one thing that starts to enrage me about the fediverse; once the local hivemind decided something no amount of discussion or information is allowed. No more critical thinking even though most likely we would reach the same conclusions…
Did the hive mind really decide cops should in no context go to an individual & punch them in the face, or is that just an universal logical thought known to the majority about public servants?
The law doesn’t mandate face-punching.
If someone breaks the law, there are other prescribed procedural consequences (literal procedures in law that describe what law enforcement needs to do). Not some sadistic ronin desperado impersonating justice as they individually see fit outside the context of law.
If someone is guiltily of something, "a slap on the wrist’ is a metaphor, not a literal means of dispensing justice directly by the law enforcement on the spot.
(Also reserved for those with power & who massively break the law, but that is another convo.)
Person has a bomb in a public place. Cop punches that person in the face, and takes control of the bomb. That would be one example of context in which a cop punching someone would be valid.
This is why context is important, because taking a snap shot of something is never the whole picture. If the cop is in the wrong, I want the whole picture. Not just the part you say is relevant. For example, did the cop punch anyone else before or after punching her?
But no, just “ThErE iS nO cOnTeXt!!!”
I don’t think you know what a bomb is.
I dont think you know what a good argument is.
Without going into technicalities there’s the notion of reasonable force and proportional response and all that which is literally bound to the context of an event. But you miss my point; I’m not discussing the event depicted here specifically. I’m criticising the lack of critical thinking and openness to arguments. Reaching the conclusion that this cop mustn’t have punched that particular person for the exact context should not be taboo. We should be, in full understanding of the situation, condemning it.