This has nothing to do with being pro-police or anti-police, it’s not a gray area to take sides. It’s common sense. There are cases where subjective bias and preference can apply and a debate commence, but this is not one of them. If you thing otherwise, you’re factually wrong.
Look, we know that this is definitely a case of sheep being led by strategically placed actors, but it does remind me of a point I had heard years ago about issues courts were having finding good jurors in a post CSI world.
I don't have the article on hand, but the idea was that you could have all the motive, the timing, the means to get a conviction, but people were looking for the DNA evidence they saw on their tv shows.
In the very same way, this outrage - to a much dumber scale - are people looking at outcomes without ever considering ANY bit of context. They know the end result is x, and they're going to march without any critical thinking.
This has nothing to do with being pro-police or anti-police, it’s not a gray area to take sides. It’s common sense. There are cases where subjective bias and preference can apply and a debate commence, but this is not one of them. If you thing otherwise, you’re factually wrong.
Look, we know that this is definitely a case of sheep being led by strategically placed actors, but it does remind me of a point I had heard years ago about issues courts were having finding good jurors in a post CSI world.
I don't have the article on hand, but the idea was that you could have all the motive, the timing, the means to get a conviction, but people were looking for the DNA evidence they saw on their tv shows.
In the very same way, this outrage - to a much dumber scale - are people looking at outcomes without ever considering ANY bit of context. They know the end result is x, and they're going to march without any critical thinking.
These people are stupid.