Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ahtasva t1_iuth4mk wrote

Reply to comment by DrixxYBoat in Cop shooter captured by GhostOfRobertTreat

This is hilarious. We can’t “capture” criminals on the run now. 🤣🤣🤣 Please educate us on the correct verb to use in a situation like this.

2

DrixxYBoat t1_iuth7d6 wrote

Apprehended. Stop being disingenuous.

This isn't the wild west anymore. "Criminals" are people who have done bad things. People who are apprehended and sent to trial.

Describing them as criminals you need to capture is dehumanizing.

−4

OTSProspect t1_iutlbqh wrote

I like how you have criminals in quotes. Seems to me that you are more concerned with the verbiage used to describe this criminal, than you are that a police officer of the community was shot.

Maybe you have some self reflection to do.

4

DrixxYBoat t1_iutmtxe wrote

I'm using criminals in a general sense, hence the quotations.

When a police officer of the community is shot, there's a gigantic uproar. The governor has to get involved and you have literally hundreds of officers stationed outside in my neighborhood.

When a citizen is shot, it's just gang violence. In fact, it's just another Tuesday for some of y'all.

Two things can be true at the same time. The alleged shooter was apprehended. He does not need to be dehumanized for the hell of it.

He hasn't gone to trial yet. There's no footage of him shooting. He's still innocent until proven guilty...or is that only a thing we say when the roles are reversed and the aggressor is an officer?

When there's a community uproar of another unarmed black person being shot, we're told to wait for the facts. We're told not to talk shit about the offending officer or his department.

Don't project your own "self reflection" insecurities onto me.

8

ahtasva t1_iutq1d3 wrote

This thread is the perfect illustration of the manufactured lunacy that plagues our society today.

Describing a known criminal who is both armed and dangerous and who shot 2 police officers in an attempt to evade the law as having been “captured” is the “problem” in this whole tragic episode. Not apparently, the crime itself or the danger this criminal put the general public in when he decided to engage the cops in a gun battle form the roof of a residential building. Or any one of the many alleged criminal acts that brought the cops to his doorstep in the first place.

Lo and behold ; the word police has decreed that the very act of “capturing” this man has magically robbed him of his humanity.

What a clown show we are living in. 🤦🏾

5

DrixxYBoat t1_iuu2thb wrote

Yeah, no. There's no magic about it. If you were the least bit informed about real life, you would understand that you're biased asf.

The Roles of Dehumanization and Moral Outrage in Retributive Justice

>When innocents are intentionally harmed, people are motivated to see that offenders get their “just deserts”. The severity of the punishment they seek is driven by the perceived magnitude of the harm and moral outrage.

>when criminal behavior is seen as intentional (e.g., [11]–[13]), perpetrators are judged as more culpable, responsible, and blameworthy [14]–[19] and are punished more severely [20]. In these cases, when mitigating factors are scarce and crimes are viewed as intentional, people tend to endorse retributive forms of punishment [21], [22] and are highly sensitive to the harm done in forming judgements about punishment severity

4

kjeannel t1_iuuhfxp wrote

You are speaking about a different issue here. Both (the crime and this discussion) are issues. OP is only pointing out that the word used to describe finding the suspect further embeds subliminal racism into our daily lives.

We already know the crime is a problem. That's obvious. This is an issue with the reporting of it.

2

ahtasva t1_iuul864 wrote

No I am not. I am simply pointing out the the term “captured” does not in itself dehumanize the criminal. To suggest otherwise is pure projection. The term captured / arrested and apprehended are used interchangeably very often in news reports. I see no evidence proffered to suggest that the term is used more or less often when describing offenders of a particular race. Absent such evidence, the argument that the mere use of different synonyms to describe the same act can somehow result in the “dehumanization” of said offender is not tenable.

The study the other poster cited says as much. Nothing novel in the study what so ever. Participants were exposed to description of 3 different crimes; an assault, the murder of young children and embezzlement. Participants were equally morally outraged by all 3 crimes but viewed the child murders as less human and therefore less worthy of rehabilitation and warranting longer sentences.

The important thing to note is that the tendency to view the criminal as less human is not a function of how the crime was described ( something that you and the poster you are responding to are making the case for) rather it is a function of the crime itself. Child murders are viewed as less human than someone who embezzled a few hundred grand! What’s ground breaking about that ??

Apply that to this case, you have a criminal who while being investigate for a series of serious crimes gets into a gun fight with the police in a building full of other residents and ends up shooting and injuring two police officers. He then flees the crime scene and is arrested some time latter. You and the other poster seriously believe that given the facts of the case, this criminal will somehow be prejudiced by the fact that his apprehension was described in a Twitter post as him being “captured” 🤷🏾‍♂️🤦🏾🤷🏾‍♂️

8