However tragic, the recent deaths of Eric Garner and Michael Brown have given some insight to the way people interpret information.
In the Brown case, we have a young black male who committed larceny, was insubordinate to a police officer, then attacked the police officer. Or, we have a black man who was profiled by a white cop who shot the black man even though he was clearly unarmed.
With Garner, we have a man with a criminal record who resisted arrest and required extra force to subdue because of his size. The officer applied a legal "hold" and Garner died because of a pre-existing condition. Or we have a man who was being hassled by cops, passively resisted, and was strangled to death even though he was unarmed and non threatening.
Cherry Picking
The more intriguing aspect comes when people identify different stories to support their view. I saw a conservative friend on Facebook post a Washington Times story about a black cop who shot an unarmed white teen. Instead of mourning the tragedy, he complained that the liberal media wasn't covering this because it didn't "fit their agenda."
People will choose to pay attention to whichever details complete their narrative and assign no value to contradictory elements. They will never be persuaded. The world is one big choose-your-own-adventure story.
A Humane Approach
I read about a white man in Florida who shot and stabbed his mother. Then he went Norman Reedus and fired an arrow into her ahead, apparently in case she "turned." The man was armed with a knife and resisting arrest when the police arrived, yet they managed to subdue him by using a stun gun. Why can't we, as a society, be looking for ways to make this type of arrest the norm rather than gun shots and choke holds?
The weakest argument is the "he was asking for it" narrative. It's the same argument that shifts blame to the rape victim for being flirty and dressing too promiscuously. Certainly, if Garner and Brown had been compliant it is very likely they would both be alive now. But if we can agree that rape is categorically wrong, why can't we agree the killing an unarmed, non-threatening man is categorically wrong (I realize the term "non threatening" may or may not apply to Brown based on whose testimony you read. But the passive Garner was evident to anyone with a YouTube account)?
Effective Change
If we want change, the worst thing we can do is make this about race. We have effectively turned racism into a dirty word. It still exits, but at the subconscious level. Most people do not consider themselves racists, even if their actions say otherwise. So to accuse someone of racism puts them on the defensive, turning the ordeal into an argument that will never settle.
We're more likely to see change if we address issues like the police union protecting bad cops, who are a small minority of the entire force. Or fixing the legislative system that treats cops differently than the rest of us. There are good cops out there and it's not fair to lump them in with those who abuse power.
I once read about the folly of the term "black-on-black crime." It's just crime. Likewise, we need the conversation to be about the lives of the innocent. Were Garner and Brown guilty of misdemeanors? Yes, but did they deserve to die?
