Why Are People Against Personal Accountabilty For Individuals Who Behave Badly?

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

The people who double-book seats in their company's planes as a regular policy are the ones behaving badly, not the people who refuse to miss their flights for the sake of that same corporation's profits. You have an OBLIGATION to stand up against injustice and that man standing his ground was acting right. Just because police ask you to do something doesn't make the request legal. The airline can't just deem you as a trespasser when all you did was sit in the seat you own the ticket to sit in. Whatever is idiotic in this situation is the law that would let airlines have such power over regular people.

 

[KissingSunlight]

snip

snip

This accusation of me jumping to conclusion is confusing. How is acknowledging that someone acting stupid, rude, and/or criminal is "jumping to conclusions"? Is saying someone provoking an incitement of violence deserves whatever happens to him or her is wrong? If someone attacks a police officer, doesn't that person deserves whatever reaction the cop does in defending himself? If someone breaks into a house, shouldn't we expect that the burglar runs a serious risk of getting shot by the homeowner? (Might I add, deservedly so.) Even with this airplane incident, is it "jumping to conclusion" to expect a grown man to behave maturely when asked to leave a plane? Instead of him engaging in a war of wills that left airline officials with no other option than to drag him off the plane.

I'm serious. I need some clarification on this.

 

[Randomosity]

What about people accused of rape?

Edit: And you yourself disregard context if you are quick to favor one side.

I dont disagree with the intent of the topic, I just think you have proven to be guilty of what you are criticizing others for.

OK, I know you trying to play "Gotcha!" I'll give you an honest answer to that question. I am for letting all the facts come out and letting the courts decide the guilt or innocence of people. Regardless of the crime, rape or excessive force by a police officer.

What I am against is people jumping to conclusions and forming angry mobs and declaring someone is guilty seconds after watching an out-of-context video clip online. Which seems to happen way too much. I think we are better than that. At least, we should be better than that.

And I am against people just assuming cops are infallible.

I am not a fan of people who thinks cops are infallible.

I think we are coming close to a complete agreement here.

I am against people just assuming "victims" are infallible. Can I get you to agree with that statement?

Only if you are willing to consider that maybe you yourself are sometimes quick to jump to biased conclusions too.

I certainly have become very anti-authority lately, but it is not like I -want- to distrust those in power, especially people like police who are the ones actively involved in directly upholding law and hopefully justice.

I just think it is up to The Police to fix the problems, since well, they are supposed to be the good guys, with the training and organization. Innocent people should never have to fear police, but the power is in the police's hands. It is up to them to ensure officers do not have, or atleast do not let unfair bias paint their actions, as well as train them to keep a level head and act and react appropriately in tense and dangerous situations.

I think a big contributing factor in this is the Media. We all hear about the stories of cops who beat someone, or killed someone, or were taking bribes. Those are on the news all the time. How often do we hear the stories of cops doing good? Saving lives, helping people, being pillars of the community. We tend not to hear that side all that often because it doesn't bring in ratings.

The media has fueled the fires against cops. Helped perpetuate the fear. That isn't to say cops haven't had a hand in it. I'm sure we can all make quite the list of news stories of bad cops doing bad things, but we all need to realize there truly are a lot of good cops who do good things that we may never hear about.

At the end of the day, I just think we need a few less people being Anti-something. Us vs them mentalities create bigger rifts. It is about time we start trying to patch the holes and build something better.

What about people accused of rape?

Edit: And you yourself disregard context if you are quick to favor one side.

I dont disagree with the intent of the topic, I just think you have proven to be guilty of what you are criticizing others for.

OK, I know you trying to play "Gotcha!" I'll give you an honest answer to that question. I am for letting all the facts come out and letting the courts decide the guilt or innocence of people. Regardless of the crime, rape or excessive force by a police officer.

What I am against is people jumping to conclusions and forming angry mobs and declaring someone is guilty seconds after watching an out-of-context video clip online. Which seems to happen way too much. I think we are better than that. At least, we should be better than that.

And I am against people just assuming cops are infallible.

Cops certainly can and do make bad calls, mistakes, or even intentionally awful decisions. They are people just like you or me.

I think the real crux of this is in regards to the court of public opinion. Innocent until proven guilty needs to work both ways. Did the person commit a crime, or was it a misunderstanding, or mistake, or false accusation? Who knows, that is what needs to be sorted out. On the other hand, did the cop protect his life, or senselessly kill a person? Same thing, who knows, that is what needs to be sorted out.

No one in this world is infallible, but people as a whole really do need to cut back on the court of public opinion. Not every cop is abusive of their power. Not every every person accused of rape, theft, murder, or littering is guilty of such crimes. Some are, some aren't.

This is true, we should wait until all the evidence is released to make a judgement call. But oftentimes when it comes to cop misconduct all the evidence is hidden or hindered. Precincts would rather protect their own than do their job, and when it comes down to it no matter what a cop has done it always, always ends up with them being put on paid leave until the news stops covering it (likely to cover some other cop abuse story) and then giving them their job back. And if anyone dares call it out from inside? THATS when someone gets fired.

I wish it was better, I wish it was more fair. But frankly, police officers have collectively earned their mistrust.

You are very right. Those in power do have the means to evade consequences. This is why we need more people to try to stay informed and keep a watchful eye on those in power. There is no easy answer to this problem. Cops do need a certain degree of freedom in order to effectively do their job, but too much freedom is certainly not good. Those caught abusing power should be the ones facing the harshest consequences, but who oversees those in power? Someone with even more power, obviously. But who oversees them? I've no answer for this problem.

Only thing I can say on the mistrust of cops is what I said above. The media has helped stoke the fires, but cops certainly have played a significant hand in the matter as well.

 

[Saelune]

snip

snip

This accusation of me jumping to conclusion is confusing. How is acknowledging that someone acting stupid, rude, and/or criminal is "jumping to conclusions"? Is saying someone provoking an incitement of violence deserves whatever happens to him or her is wrong? If someone attacks a police officer, doesn't that person deserves whatever reaction the cop does in defending himself? If someone breaks into a house, shouldn't we expect that the burglar runs a serious risk of getting shot by the homeowner? (Might I add, deservedly so.) Even with this airplane incident, is it "jumping to conclusion" to expect a grown man to behave maturely when asked to leave a plane? Instead of him engaging in a war of wills that left airline officials with no other option than to drag him off the plane.

I'm serious. I need some clarification on this.

This very post excluded the idea of context. Ofcourse much of the first page of this topic is why we think you jump to conclusions.

I dont think an unarmed person taking swings at a cop deserves to be shot with a gun. I certainly know a heavily subdued man doesnt deserve to be shot point-blank in the gut.

And uh, actually using the United controversy makes it -extremely clear- that you jump to conclusions. Cause it is quite apaprent that United was, to continue using Dr. Cox:


Airline officials had other options. Its called honoring a legally paid for ticket. Or not ending up in that situation to begin with which is on United to do, not -any- customer.

 

[KissingSunlight]

This very post excluded the idea of context. Ofcourse much of the first page of this topic is why we think you jump to conclusions.

I re-read the first page again. I used the word "criminal" a lot. I can understand how some people could interpret that as "jumping to conclusion". However, it was just short-hand of me saying cop and a person who is not a cop that the police is engaged with. That last description is kind of awkward. So, I made a reasonable short-hand of "criminal". Since, more times than not, that is who the police are dealing with.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

A lot of people think "Well, what would I want to happen in said situation"?

If we're going back to the plane incident (I do know we're trying to keep distance from it, but it's important), I would have given up the seat. Not because I'm some great guy. It's because I'm a minority. And a lot of my actions are colored in a different light.

How do I know this? A lifetime of experiences. I don't have the patience to go over them all, but if anyone is interested I'll list some. But the reason I say this is that in my case, the "What would I want to happen in said situation" is that things will go smoothly and without incident. Because I truly believe that no matter what I say, there's going to be some well-to-do people or elderly people who will see me refusing and then list every incident that they ever heard of where a minority was even tangentially negatively involved and make up their mind that I'm completely the same way. And if it gets bad, I will be seen as the instigator.

I want an hassle-free life. I know that I don't walk around as a solitary person, but as a potential in many people's perceptions. Not all, but many. So it colors how I conduct myself.

Other people might not have this hang up. All that matters is them and them alone. So if they are outraged, that's all that matters in the world now, and all others be damned until their personal slight has been corrected.

Others might see it as principle. Conviction. Standing up for their beliefs. And there's nothing wrong about that. Sure, we can be civil in the manner that we conduct ourselves, but some might feel that they must stand up for what they believe in with the exact amount of fervor they need to defend whatever position they have.

Some might believe Civil Disobedience in order to shake up the norm. Even more might want to become an internet sensation. Others are dicks

There are a ton of reasons why people do what they do. I just touched on six here (including myself) in a few seconds of thinking about it. Some might be intentionally muckraising. Some might feel they have a legitimate grievance to stand up for. Some just are ornery and like to fight. But the most important thing that no matter the reason for anyone doing something, there will be just as many perceptions on what that something actually meant, how much it mattered, and then will weigh on their personal judgment of how that something went.

One person might consider his actions freedom fighting. Someone reading about it will consider him a pompous dick. There is no catch-all for human interaction. What is laughable to you might be the most earnest truth in my eyes. So it's not that people are against personal accountability. They just might not see the same situation the way you do. That's not a bad thing. It's just the beauty of the human experience.

As the old saying goes: If there are three people in a room, there will be nine different opinions.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

I can understand why the guy didn't want to leave. However, at some point, he should have acted like an emotionally mature adult and take their compensation. Maybe, get some documentation of the incident and sue them for the inconvenience. However, you don't act like a bratty little child and refuse to leave. Even when law enforcement is asking you politely to leave.

There are a lot of incidents I can mention. However, like this airplane incident, people tend to duck this bigger question about themselves in favor of hating on "The Man" i.e.: Companies, police, and people acting in self-defense.

The problem with the United thing is that the airline was offering substantially less [http://www.vox.com/new-money/2017/4/10/15244100/united-overbooking-bumping-scandal] compensation than is usual for cases of overbooking. The custom is 4x ticket price; they were offering maybe half of that, by my guess.

That's why they had no takers, and when they decided to pick passengers at random and ended up with a doctor (who actually had a genuine reason for not giving up his seat; he had patients to treat the next morning [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/united-airlines-doctor-david-dao-drag-flight-3411-overbooking-chicago-hospital-a7679426.html]) they used way too much force getting him to leave his seat. I mean, the guy was knocked unconscious and ended up in hospital. That's disproportionate even for a nightclub bouncer evicting an angry drunk. There's a better way to coerce someone off a flight; tell all the passengers that the plane isn't leaving until one of them gets off.

United could have avoided this entire debacle - and saved themselves a billion dollars [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/united-airlines-united-continental-shares-slide-drop-expect-passenger-dragged-flight-3411-overbooked-a7678051.html] in lost share value - by being a little more generous with the compensation. They didn't do that. It was a clusterfuck from end to end; it wasn't "stupid person gets punished for stupidity."

Regarding the general point of the OP: the reason why police and government are always held accountable for the fuckups of private citizens is because police and government wield tremendous power over the lives of those private citizens, and are held to a higher standard as a result. Or...should be held to a higher standard; often, even egregious police misconduct goes unpunished, and even obscenely corrupt government officials usually find some way to skirt blame. (Lookin' at you, Mr. President.)

That's not to say that cops are responsible for every injury or death that occurs in their job. It's a complicated job, they're all armed, sometimes the people they're arresting are armed or look armed, and the cops are trained to react to threats like that by shooting the fuck out of the guy with the gun. I mean, you combine guns, panic, and human fallibility, you end up with a lot of accidents.

The United thing, however, wasn't one of those situations. The passenger presented no immediate threat to those around him that would warrant the force used, and there were multiple non-violent alternatives available that were not taken by the airline. Instead, the airline called the cops, and the cops resorted to physical force immediately, because they were impatient and/or irresponsible. They ought to be held accountable for that. They're the ones who fucked up.

 

[Trunkage]

Snip

Okay, so I talk to some Libertarians... I'd didn't ask them but I think they would say that its private property and they can do what they want. On top of that, if society demeans their actions to be inappropriate then they will be financial impacted. (Which is what happened.) So that feedback loop worked affectively and shouldn't change.

Then these Libertarian are split on what to do with police. They see government as meddling with this feedback loop which self-regulates behaviour. Some prefer to see police being privatised to introduce this feedback loop into the system, hopefully improving everyone behaviour. Others see the inherent issues I see - corruption is not really seen as a bad thing unless its in the political sphere. (For example, when you here about corruption, its usually the politicians fault, they get a large portion of the punishment and the company gets to slink away.) Thus paying your way out of trouble might not be seen as corrupt if the police was private.

I can see have a rule about how bookings in a lot of American Airlines would help but it would increase prices. But sometimes companies think they can do what they want and they've been forcing people into these situations which ends up being bad for everyone.

 

[Saelune]

Snip

Okay, so I talk to some Libertarians... I'd didn't ask them but I think they would say that its private property and they can do what they want. On top of that, if society demeans their actions to be inappropriate then they will be financial impacted. (Which is what happened.) So that feedback loop worked affectively and shouldn't change.

Then these Libertarian are split on what to do with police. They see government as meddling with this feedback loop which self-regulates behaviour. Some prefer to see police being privatised to introduce this feedback loop into the system, hopefully improving everyone behaviour. Others see the inherent issues I see - corruption is not really seen as a bad thing unless its in the political sphere. (For example, when you here about corruption, its usually the politicians fault, they get a large portion of the punishment and the company gets to slink away.) Thus paying your way out of trouble might not be seen as corrupt if the police was private.

I can see have a rule about how bookings in a lot of American Airlines would help but it would increase prices. But sometimes companies think they can do what they want and they've been forcing people into these situations which ends up being bad for everyone.

"Private property" loses its meaning when it offers a public service. There is a difference between forcing someone off a person's private jet, and a fucking airliner.

Just as there is a difference between attacking someone who breaks into your house and attacking someone who you invited in.

 

[Baffle]

Well, he's filed court papers now, so I guess we'll see if United will be held responsible for their actions.

Still haven't seen any examples of people not being held responsible for their actions. People in the UK may recall the case of farmer Tony Martin who shot two burglars (killing one) in 1999. He did go to prison (I believe it was relevant that he shot one of them in the back as they ran away), but public opinion was overwhelmingly on his side.

 

[jklinders]

I take it on a case by case basis. I look at the situation and decide where the instigation occurred, how the law applies and how a reasonable person would react and form my opinion accordingly. More often than not it's the "jackass" that responsible. But in other cases like the event where a man was dragged off of a plane, it's not.

I know you don't want this to be about the United Airlines thing but that was the spark for this and United's breaking of their own contract of Carriage was the instigating factor here. Perhaps a reasonable person would have gotten off the plane, but United instigated by their incompetence and refusal to abide by their own contract which they themselves had written. Then they proceeded to try to assassinate the character of the person they wronged. This was a textbook case of choosing wrong at each and every turn. So the "jackass" in that case got very little love from the public.

Sometimes it takes 2 to make a bad incident. Things are rarely as one sided as we want to think and when looking at these scenarios it behooves one to try to exercise a little empathy. The lack of empathy by many involved in both these events and the commenters after the fact creates these public relations shitstorms.

But in the end I look at who instigated, how the law applies and how a reasonable person would react. Then I form an opinion. From there disagreement occurs.

 

[PainInTheAssInternet]

Sorry about that. Thank you.

I'll do a mea culpa about the "pro-criminal" comment. I was being snarky. I understand that was crossing the line. I'm sorry.

I was more concerned about generalizing others, with that being the most salient example.

EDIT: Though the admission is appreciated.

 

[Leg End]

Cops should know better, its their job.

They should, but don't. And now there is legal precedent that it's kosher for police to be ignorant of the law.

We need to wipe the slate clean and burn it all down.

Spoiler

 

[TrulyBritish]

So, what I have learned so far: People are just biased against institutions and authority figures or anyone who acts like an authority figure (someone using lethal force to defend themselves). It's this jumping to conclusion that companies, police, etc. must have done something wrong when people see a video and/or read a headline about someone getting hurt or shot. Personally, what I have found when you take the time and get all the facts. It is usually the person that everyone thinks is the "victim" was behaving like an asshole and deserved what happened to him. However, by the time this revelation has come out, people are too invested in hating the police officer, company, etc. to admit they were wrong about their quick conclusion.

See, this is what people mean when they accuse you of straw manning.
They point to specific examples they feel were authority figures acting out of order and you accuse of just being "biased against institutions and authority figures" and jumping to conclusions.
Even about the United Airlines situations people point out how they feel the airline was in the wrong and even in possible breach of contract, but noooo, they just didn't bother to get all the facts apparently.

 

[bastardofmelbourne]

"Private property" loses its meaning when it offers a public service. There is a difference between forcing someone off a person's private jet, and a fucking airliner.

Just as there is a difference between attacking someone who breaks into your house and attacking someone who you invited in.

I was thinking about that, actually. Is there a reason - other than cost and economic inertia - why aviation is privatised? Shouldn't economy-level air travel be a government operation?

I mean, most other forms of large-capacity travel - trains, buses, trams - are basically best run by public entities, because they're really hard to make profitable and need large government subsidies anyway. Airlines have always had the same problem; that's why they have a reputation for insane thriftiness [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-cult-of-low-prices/522774/]. But if it was being run by the government, effectively at a loss, it could offer cheaper air travel to...basically everyone. The government would make up for it in taxes.

Is it just "privatisation is more efficient" rearing its head? Because that's never really the case, at least not with public transportation. I mean, jet fuel is something like a quarter as expensive as it was a few years ago, but the airlines haven't passed those savings onto the consumers; prices have stayed where they are...because why lower them?

Maybe it has to do with international travel? Like, maybe the US government isn't cool with the Chinese government effectively flying planes in and out of the country? I still think there could be a federally operated domestic air travel service.

 

[TrulyBritish]

I think a big contributing factor in this is the Media. We all hear about the stories of cops who beat someone, or killed someone, or were taking bribes. Those are on the news all the time. How often do we hear the stories of cops doing good? Saving lives, helping people, being pillars of the community. We tend not to hear that side all that often because it doesn't bring in ratings.

The media has fueled the fires against cops. Helped perpetuate the fear. That isn't to say cops haven't had a hand in it. I'm sure we can all make quite the list of news stories of bad cops doing bad things, but we all need to realize there truly are a lot of good cops who do good things that we may never hear about.

At the end of the day, I just think we need a few less people being Anti-something. Us vs them mentalities create bigger rifts. It is about time we start trying to patch the holes and build something better.

We don't typically hear stories of cops doing good because it's their job to do so. It's what they are paid to do.
On a similar note we don't have news stories about firemen putting out fires, doctors correctly diagnosing patients or teachers helping students pass exams because, again, it's what they do.
We shine a light on cops acting badly because they have a lot of authority and are expected to be better than that.

This isn't even getting into people's worries that if news stories weren't run then guilty officers wouldn't face and punishment for wrong doing (I don't have any statistics on hand to say if this is a big problem or not, so I won't).

 

[Saelune]

"Private property" loses its meaning when it offers a public service. There is a difference between forcing someone off a person's private jet, and a fucking airliner.

Just as there is a difference between attacking someone who breaks into your house and attacking someone who you invited in.

I was thinking about that, actually. Is there a reason - other than cost and economic inertia - why aviation is privatised? Shouldn't economy-level air travel be a government operation?

I mean, most other forms of large-capacity travel - trains, buses, trams - are basically best run by public entities, because they're really hard to make profitable and need large government subsidies anyway. Airlines have always had the same problem; that's why they have a reputation for insane thriftiness [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/04/united-cult-of-low-prices/522774/]. But if it was being run by the government, effectively at a loss, it could offer cheaper air travel to...basically everyone. The government would make up for it in taxes.

Is it just "privatisation is more efficient" rearing its head? Because that's never really the case, at least not with public transportation. I mean, jet fuel is something like a quarter as expensive as it was a few years ago, but the airlines haven't passed those savings onto the consumers; prices have stayed where they are...because why lower them?

Maybe it has to do with international travel? Like, maybe the US government isn't cool with the Chinese government effectively flying planes in and out of the country? I still think there could be a federally operated domestic air travel service.

Now thats some dirty socialist talk. And we want none of that here in Good ol Murica.

Edit: (For those unaware, Im a socialist )

 

[davidmc1158_v1legacy]

I was thinking about that, actually. Is there a reason - other than cost and economic inertia - why aviation is privatised? Shouldn't economy-level air travel be a government operation?

"That there is filthy, stinking, satanistic, atheistic, nazi communist talk right there buddy. Government needs to keep out of all the businesses that go the extra mile to make our lives a living hell for profit!" grrr grrr snarl snarl

Sadly, in the U.S. far too many people really seem to think that. Socialism is simply 'evil' as a knee-jerk reaction without ever actually understanding just what socialism actually is around here.

We have tried to privatize everything that should never be done in the name of the profit motive: healthcare, prisons, education, etc. Hell, for the longest time in the U.S., the police departments were private companies that bid with cities to be the local law enforcement (sometimes a different company for each neighborhood) which then made their profits from the fines they levied. That only changed in the first part of the 20th century.