Anyone who cares enough about what goes on in the inner-city will generally pay attention to intelligence reports, academic studies, read books (including novels from people such as Richard Price), watch documentaries, and use any list of other sources to see a bit about that portion of our community.One who does that (such as me) will recognise that rather a few residents there do not trust or for any act of other reasons dislike the police.
nd this will make specific consequences with respect to people's behavior towards them.
I don't drop a big mass of sentence in the inner-city so I cannot allow a detailed in-depth sociological picture of its dynamics.But there are about very basic things that are so well-known and widely reported that one can take the statement that anyone who isn't aware of them is ignorant.These include such basic phenomena as the inner-city having (by far) a higher crime rate than other parts of that city, the poverty rate being higher, educational achievement and rank of work being much lower, and the attitudes towards police being substantially more tense.If someone is not cognizant of all these simple facts you question why.Perhaps that somebody doesn't care enough about what goes on in the inner-city because he considers himself to be life in a different order and doesn't remember what goes on there is crucial to him.
My definition of the phrase "many" is, I think, the sami as most peoples'.There are ever a few masses in nearly every large area who get near every case of attitude imaginable.But when there are a lot more than a few, when there are many, it is adequate that if the dynamics are right, it will have effects on something about that specific area.If the number of residents having a negative attitude toward the law were less than many then it wouldn't have been adequate for me to build the argument near the likelihoods of the witnesses statements being incorrect.There are no doubt also many residents in the inner-city who have positive attitudes towards the police.And plain that has effects as well.The offense and social unrest in the area would undoubtedly be still worse if it weren't for those individuals.
It is well inside the rate of hypothesis that the witnesses claiming the guy didn't own a gun are not lying but are incorrect.The intelligence reports said it was a crowded train.The gun could have been there but they didn't see it.Perhaps they didn't think at the sentence to attend carefully for it and they remembered incorrectly how often of the person's body they saw.So they may think they have adequate data to have a mind but don't.And if they take a suspicion or otherwise negative attitude towards the law so that may have played a share in incorrectly convincing them they saw plenty of the spot to see that the single didn't get a gun.All this, of course, is speculation.But it also really is speculation to state, based on a few witness reports, that the law might get killed someone who posed no threat.So if people are speculating in that matter then certainly others bear a good to muse about other scenarios.
No comments:
Post a Comment