Why is the "knee jerk" reaction to a lot of things "fire them!"?

[mjr]

Case in point. This case:

http://www.snopes.com/dorothy-bland/

Had people calling for the lady to be fired. There were a couple of follow-ups to it, but basically people are saying she lied, hurt race relations, etc.

And many are saying she should be fired.

I disagree with the ones that think she should be fired. I do think, though, a publicly-issued apology to the officers would be a good thing. She kinda-sorta did that ("I respect law enforcement, blah, blah, blah..."), but it seemed like one of those non-apology apologies.

But I digress...

Why is it that, in a lot of cases where there's some sort of action people don't agree with (the Chick-Fil-A guy is another example), a lot of people's automatic knee-jerk reaction is "they need to be fired!!"

[Greenday]

Your link is an excellent case for someone who deserves to be fired. You can't be the dean of a school for journalism if you have no journalistic integrity. It sets a super bad example and no half-assed "My bad" can change that.

[Hyena Dandy]

How does she lack journalistic integrity?

[mjr]

How does she lack journalistic integrity?

I can't speak for Greenday, but a lot of people probably think the lady's account of what happened and the "dash cam" tell two different stories.

[mjr]

You can't be the dean of a school for journalism if you have no journalistic integrity.

No, but maybe there's a spot open at one of the major news agencies.

[Canarr]

Read the Snopes article carefully: it's not definite that she lied. Okay, her recollection of the officers' words doesn't match the video, but that may just be a memory issue.

From the article, it seems like overreaction on both sides: it's not clear why the officers would need to radio in her name and DOB just for a negligible traffic offense (that isn't even recorded on the video). But neither does it seem to warrant an editorial piece.

Then again, walking or driving while black does seem cause for quite a lot of police stops in the US, so the grievance may be legit.

[mjr]

a negligible traffic offense (that isn't even recorded on the video). But neither does it seem to warrant an editorial piece.
.

It's technically a misdemeanor to walk in the road with traffic here in Texas. I think it's rarely enforced, though. For safety, you're supposed to either walk on the sidewalk (visible in the video) or against traffic.

I think in this case she was walking, had earphones on, and the police were just informing her of the danger of walking in the street like she was.

And she wasn't just stopped out of the blue. Apparently someone in a pickup truck called the police because she was in the road and they almost hit her or something.

[Canarr]

I get that. But for a warning, it wouldn't really be necessary to ask Dispatch about a black female and radio in her name and DOB, would it?

[Gravekeeper]

Well, if your kneejerk reaction includes the term "liberal agenda" its usually safe to ignore you. >.>

Looking at the details of the matter and what she has said afterwards, I don't see any compelling reason for her to issue a public apology to the officers at this point. The articles are pretty spot on when they say this is basically a Rorschach test for the viewer.

Your link is an excellent case for someone who deserves to be fired. You can't be the dean of a school for journalism if you have no journalistic integrity. It sets a super bad example and no half-assed "My bad" can change that.

Case in point, apparently.

She wrote an editorial, which by definition is an opinion piece. She was not reporting on this story as a journalist, she is the subject of the story. I know you have blinders on whenever cops are involved, but its getting really tiresome.

[mjr]

I get that. But for a warning, it wouldn't really be necessary to ask Dispatch about a black female and radio in her name and DOB, would it?

It may be the procedure of that particular department, I don't know. Apparently, one of the two officers was in training.

A lot of people don't (but probably should) carry ID on them when they're exercising. So asking for her name and DOB may be a reasonable expectation, I don't know. I mean, if she said her name was Dorothy Gale, and they radioed it in, and there was no Dorothy Gale, that might be suspicious, right?

[Gravekeeper]

And she wasn't just stopped out of the blue. Apparently someone in a pickup truck called the police because she was in the road and they almost hit her or something.

No one called police. The officers stated they observed a truck having to come to a stop behind her without her realizing it due to her earbuds. The dash cam had not been turned on yet though. So it only picks up the stop itself.

[mjr]

Looking at the details of the matter and what she has said afterwards, I don't see any compelling reason for her to issue a public apology to the officers at this point. The articles are pretty spot on when they say this is basically a Rorschach test for the viewer.

Possibly. But what if there were no Dash Cam video? And no response from the Corinth police department?

[mjr]

No one called police. The officers stated they observed a truck having to come to a stop behind her without her realizing it due to her earbuds. The dash cam had not been turned on yet though. So it only picks up the stop itself.

Thanks for the clarification on that. I knew there was a truck involved somehow.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't see how the video fails to match up to what she said happened. It starts after one would have expected there to be lights/sirens, if they're just pulling over a person who's walking on foot. Certainly the few times I got stopped, it was just a second or two of lights and such. And while she was not immediately asked for her name and identification, it was still fairly quick and abrupt.

I saw nothing in the video that made me think she would have been WILLFULLY lying. The human memory is a tricky thing, and frequently contradicts video evidence. I've been doing some Doctor Who Vlogs with my friend, and I've found that I often recall a conversation playing out differently from how it did. Or that I or he said or did something. I didn't see anything on the video that would make me think that she was recounting her perception of events dishonestly.

I get that. But for a warning, it wouldn't really be necessary to ask Dispatch about a black female and radio in her name and DOB, would it?

I'm not sure about that, the one time I was stopped, I got my name and age radio'd in. If there's a warrant out for her, or if the name and DOB given don't match what she says (For example, if there is no Ms. Bland in the area that she just claimed to live in) that'd be worth an eyebrow raise. Or if dispatch says "Yeah, actually, someone reported being attacked by a black female about that age just five minutes ago. Can you give a more detailed description?"

[Gravekeeper]

Possibly. But what if there were no Dash Cam video? And no response from the Corinth police department?

It would still be the same reaction, to be honest. Snopes is pretty good on the facts of the matter here. The dashcam does not differ from her account in any significant way. The only quibble is "sirens". The police chief did acknowledge that the officers turned their lights on, just not their sirens.

Checking her ID is a technicality which likely wasn't aware of ( and they did not explain it was department policy ). Radioing in her information however the police did not provide an explanation for and she didn't even mention in her editorial. The video revealed that part.

If the police department had not responded though they'd be inviting the fallout if there was no dashcam footage.

People would see what they wanted in this story either way.