10 Points On Understanding The Other Side’s Perspective

I originally wrote this in 2017. I'd thought it lost when Facebook disabled Notes, but I found it. So here it is for you.

(Get a cup of coffee, this is a long one.)

    As is so often the case, someone asked me a question. But there’s a story ...

    First, know that I make it habit to honestly answer legitimate questions—even if I don’t like the tone. Sometimes I have to grit my teeth and respond, but it’s surprising how often you’ll find things can be worked through. If it hadn’t been for that habit I wouldn’t have noticed what I’m about to tell you. While it was indeed a sincere question, it was so deeply embedded in one particular ideology that the woman— literally— couldn’t ask without it being filled with buzzwords, assumptions, beliefs and lurid tales of the baby eating monsters on the other side dancing in her head.

    To give you an idea of what I’m talking about I’m going to use a word I absolutely loathe. Brace yourself. Ready? Imagine a young white, Southern belle in the 1960’s (struggling to get by in the new reality of civil rights) sincerely asking, “Well just how do you get along with niggers?”

    I’ll give some readers a second to unknot their panties for me daring to have used the ‘n-word.’ Now I’ll remind you although it seemed insulting, it was a legitimate question. I’ll follow up that up by acknowledging the question boiled down to an newer version of <insert Welleslian accent > “Well just how do you get along with someone who isn’t socially enlightened?”

    And that boys and girls are how blogs are born. Well technically that’s how coffee is spit, but that’s a line of jokes I’m not going to go down.

    Okay, so how the hell do you answer that kind of question? Because, truth be told, once you get past the initial shock of how it was phrased, it actually is a hell of a good question.

    How do you get along with someone with a different ideology than you? I started writing a response and... well then it turned into what you’re about to read.

***

    First — Have you read this? If not I strongly suggest you do. It's about what I call "Bleacher Thinking." (Basically,Yay us! Boo them!) And how obsessed we become over the misconduct of the other sides (them) but wildly disconnected about the bad behavior from our side (us). This especially when it's the exact same behavior.
https://www.facebook.com/notes/marc-macyoung/bleacher-thinking-yay-us-boo-them/10152431852613089/
for you non-FB users it's  also here
https://macyoungsmusings.blogspot.com/2021/04/bleacher-thinking-yay-us-boo-them.html

    Second — and going with the suggestion in the piece – go have some coffee with folks who think differently than you.

    Third — Take it a step further. Ask about and seriously listen to their position.

    That's a learning technique that seems to have been all but forgotten. Without judging, without jumping in to tell them why they're wrong, without rejecting, without being an apologist, without putting forth your own views — try to understand their point of view, belief, and logic. Actually listen to the evidence they are supplying for what they are saying. This isn't the time to try to punch holes in it. It's time to get as full of a picture as possible.

    This is called ‘listening.’ It’s markedly different than drinking the Kook-Aid. Listening doesn’t hurt. You’re not going to be infected or endangered for doing it. That immunization starts with you don’t have to decide about what you’re hearing right now. In fact, it's kind of important you don't. (I’ll explain later.) If you force yourself to wait before jumping in to tell that person he/she is wrong — surprise surprise—you'll often find stuff that actually does make sense. And not so surprising, you'll find some stuff that is absolute quackery. That's okay too.

    Now let’s take a look at some of the standards for you to listen.

    Fourth—Ask them to explain it to you in simple English.

    This doesn’t seem like much, but it’s REAL important. Here's why. Inside a field buzzwords are a communication shortcut among those who understand the subject. Outside that field buzzwords and catch phrases are often used to confuse, intimidate and make you feel stupid. They can also be a Humpty Dumpty set up. Not knowing a buzzword, you can't be sure if that's what it means. But more than that, buzzwords are often used to cover that the person using them doesn’t know what he/she is talking about. Basically they don’t know the subject, they’re parroting words to sound smart.

    Also, something I picked up a few decades back that there’s a difference between logic and rhetoric. (Also there’s a difference between debate and dialectic, but that’s something else we’ll go into later.) Despite what they ‘think,’ often what people are doing isn’t being logical. It’s instead belief and persuasion presented as logic. That’s to say they’re presenting their beliefs as if they are facts -- and often they’re trying to get you to ‘buy in.’ Buzzwords are a great way to hide when someone is doing this. Now that topic is a big can of worms I don’t want to open right now, but it’s important to know that to understand this: A lot of ideologies are self-eating watermelons.

    That’s to say they are mushed up pattern of circular logic, self-reinforcing beliefs, self-fulfilling prophecies, decision making paradigms, behaviors, “There’s a hole in the bucket Dear Liza” self-limitations and blame. Okay fine. So what? Ah, glad you asked (or didn’t). Once someone is on this kind of intellectual and emotional hamster wheel, what keeps it going is a unique language. Language inherent in perpetuating certain ideas and blocking out other ideas.

    That’s why simple English is an important litmus test.

    No buzz words. No redefined common words that mean something completely different to the speaker than to you. No lofty proclamations about humanity. No ‘you have to read this obscure thesis about _____ (fill in the blank)’ — especially about the meaning of a buzzword. Simple, “Hey, this is what I am talking about” language.

    Can the person do it? This is not a trap, nor is it an unrealistic request. Because if there really is something there, the person will be able to do it. If they spin off into a screed about themselves, history, giant ‘causes,’ insults, or “it’s not my job to educate you” then pop the red flags. Things aren’t kosher.

    Also important, is there outside sources to support and verify what they are saying? For example, if someone is going on about ‘his people’ dying on the job you can go look up trends in workplace deaths at the bureau of labor statistics and OSHA. You don't want vague statistics from unknown sources. For verification you want hard numbers from a reliable source. Be cautious about grandiose claims about society — especially when the whole ‘proof’ only exist in one squishy field and relies on buzzwords and academic concepts as the proof. (Como se de se, “self-eating watermelon?”)

    Fifth— Take it home and unpack it.

    By that I mean take your time and examine the ideas from several perspectives with access to research capabilities. That last is where most your labor is going to be.

    Look into certain fields to understand how they work, what are common practices and factors. This is EXTREMELY important because often what is unquestionable proof of "X" from one perspective is more a "That is how it works in that business. " Also if you can talk with someone in that field and ask. (Usually people telling you it’s “X” aren’t in that field.) When you talk to someone in the field, you'll typically get confirmation, 'this is why' factors, or "That's not how it works at all." Often when they tell you ‘how it works’ that's a far better explanation for the problem than a grandiose claim of “X.”

    (I call this the "Ghost Hunters Approach." One of the earlier paranormal shows had a couple of plumbers and part-time paranormal investigators. I liked the show because they would go into a house first looking for physical causes for reported supernatural events. “Yeah, that spooky thumping you're hearing down in the basement? Your hot water pipe is missing two brackets here and here. The pipe sways and thumps.” Moving on to the next ‘paranormal' event.)

    Also, spend some time looking into some foundational subjects about how humanity ticks.This is just as important as having a passing knowledge of a professional field before you accept someone's 'proof 'about how things work' but this time, you're looking at how humanity 'ticks.' For example the last subjects I dove into were Moral Foundation Theory and Time Perspective Theory. Them thar r sum powerful ideeas. Ones that you'll get major insights into where people are coming from and how their perspectives influence their thinking. All you have to do is run their ideology past these ideas.

When you do that A - All kinds of light bulbs go off (in the positive sense of "Oh, that's what they're talking about!) B - You'll be able to spot where what they are saying is consistent with known human behaviors ("Yeah, that checks out.") C - You'll begin to see where a person is hung up on and/or is weaponizing an ideology D - You'll often see holes in the idea you could build freeways through.

(A taste of this idea in practice: #1 -- Time Perspective Theory [TPT]. Basically, people both look at time differently and tend to get hung up on certain time zones in their 'thinking.' Some are past positive [the good old days]. Some are past negative [this terrible thing happened to me/us]. Some are present hedonist [live for the moment]. Some are present fatalist [it sucks and it won't change]. Some are future goal oriented [college/career/etc]. Some take future orientation to the point of being transcendental [go to heaven/create a social utopia]. These different orientations have powerful influence on one's perspective, thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors. #2 — Run an ideology past TPT and see what it reveals. An ideology may claim to be future oriented, but is actually stuck in past negative. Many victim/grievance narratives are. Or it can be so focused on the future that it’s disconnected from present reality. When you march it by the TPT you’ll also start seeing what they emphasize/use to justify their behavior/dismiss other perspectives. Believe me when I tell you running an ideology through the filter of TPT helps to spot the people who will NEVER be happy no matter what is done to 'fix things.'     This multiple perspective process can be understood as YOU running an idea through multiple filters. It’s a good habit to develop because when you run an idea through a particular filter (e.g., a moralistic thinking one) you will come up with a clear cut solid self-evident answer. It will check out... from that perspective. But from that one perspective, you can't see other factors.That’s why it’s important to run it through other sets of filters. Doing that will give you a different ‘clear and definite answer.’ The fact that the two answers are both self-evident and contradictory tells you things aren’t as simple as you’d like them to be. (That’s both life and actual intellectualism, get used to it.)

    At the same time you’ll be able to immediately spot when someone is approaching the subject from only one point of view. Like bonfire on the beach easy to ‘spot.’

    Sixth— Check for crazy. Seriously.

    I know a shrink who likes to say "There's a presumption of sanity in this culture." She then goes onto explain that, in this culture, when we meet someone we grant them the courtesy of assuming they are sane. That is a hell of a insight. Often when our assumptions don't match reality we get seriously pissed and blame the other person for not living up to our expectation about their sanity. Wait, what?     At the same time, we often wrongly condemn a different way of thinking as proof of ‘crazy.’ As someone recently pointed out, "There's a lot more irrationality than crazy in the world, and the former is often misconstrued as the latter." That is very true. Also true is there is a whole lot of crazy out there.

    I'm going to go back a few decades. Something that was a well known and common indicator for mental illness is strong religious ‘fervor.' (Go watch Peter O'Toole in "The Ruling Class.") It was and still is a red flag for a wide variety of mental conditions. When you see zealotry, start looking for mental issues. Recognize that religious doctrine can give organization to (and be used as justification) for crazy behavior. Basically here's this big idea. Something-so-big- you -can't -argue -against-it behind what the crazy person is spouting, so – ipso facto – they’re not crazy. It’s God’s will and you can’t question it.

    Now before any atheists start crowing about religious nuts; you ever thought about applying that same idea to social ideologies? (Including militant atheism?)

     ‘Cause I got some bad news for ya. You can be just as fanatical over a secular ideology and just as nuts. I’ve talked to a whole lot of people with different opinions and agendas – especially social causes. I’ve spoken with calm folks and I’ve spoken with intense folks. You know what typically and eventually comes out when dealing with the more fervent?

    They’ve been diagnosed with some mental condition.

    I’m talking about freely admitting a diagnosis, if not self-identifying as ________. Ummm wait, what? Yes. Mentally unwell people are just as attracted to today's social movements as they were to religion in times past. That's where you're going to run into a serious red flag. It used to be "God's Word" that empowered them and made what they say unquestionable. Now days it's whatever ideology they've embraced. Their mental condition is not important, the 'Cause' is truth. Yes they’re bi-polar, so what? A borderline personality disorder, what does that matter? PTSD? Gender dysphoria? ‘That doesn’t affect the truth of what they are saying.’ (Yeah, right, sure.) Another variation is that it's the seriousness of the social wrong that is behind their intensity, not ...you know, that they're emotionally unstable or in a manic phase.

   Now I'm not saying you should start with the idea that someone is nuts. But our culture does have a much higher incidence of mental instability than other cultures. Then add there’s a tendency to gravitate towards and gather. While rare in the overall population, there are pockets and concentrations. (It’s estimated that upwards of 50% of our prison population has some kind of mental illness or issues.) Mass movements, causes and religion are such pockets. With that in mind, a good rule of thumb is the more fanatical about an ideology someone is the higher the ratio of DSM-V identified issues.

    That's why this is a two part process. Stage one, we have to take one step back and first ask, “Is the idea out-to-lunch?” Some ideas are, in fact, totally divorced from reality from the git go. It’s not just the person. For example do you know there are certain ‘areas’ in gender studies that insist there is no differences between men and women? (I’ll let that one sink in for a moment.) True believers will rabidly insist there’s no difference in biology, neurology or physical capability. (Never mind the world weight lifting record for a man is 586 pounds and for a woman it is 425 pounds.) It’s all social constructs and us buying into culturally driven gender stereotypes, yada, yada, yada. Thing is this ‘theory’ is taught in college. So the person who believes it, supposedly has credibility by association. Oh and something you should know, but you won't easily find until you really dig deep into the topic. That is how often the founder of the idea/movement wasn't too tightly wrapped or—as is often the case—a horrible and deplorable person. So yeah, an idea can be cray-cray from the start.

    Stage two is we move onto is there mental illness with the follower. Among the more radical, the answer is usually ‘yes.’ For the record, I have never encountered anyone who believes the 'no difference between sexes' idea who also doesn’t self-identify as having a professionally diagnosed, DSM-V recognized issue. They may exist, but I haven’t met them.

    This is not a dismissal of an idea just because a follower is nuts. However, when you are honestly trying to understand a position, it kind of helps to factor in that the person who is so fervently pushing this ‘truth’ might be a few cards short of a full deck. If that’s the case, there’s a good chance there’ll come a point where what they are saying veers away from rational understanding. Yes, it could be the idea itself, but more likely it’s their interpretation of the idea that’s skewed. It's useful to be able to make that distinction.

    Know about the crazy factor so you can see it approaching on the horizon -- especially when it’s speeding towards you. Oh by the way, it also helps to be able to spot the difference between legitimate anger over an issue and ingrained — if not pathological —hatred that’s justified by an ideology. Just sayin’.

    Seventh —The Uncle Bob Test.

    Ideologues like to talk about big ideas, especially when it comes to grandiose claims about human behavior. Uncle Bob is a fast test to reveal a disconnect between an ideology and reality. If someone is taking about something that is supposed to be a human trait — or hell, even a social construct — doesn’t it make sense that it’s easily recognizable by ...oh I dunno... people? And if it’s not understandable to the average person, exactly how accurate can the idea be about the whole of humanity? Or again, society.

    To give you an example, I often talk about deep human wiring and behavior surrounding conflict and violence. There are certain behaviors that reliably lead to violence. After just a few sentences of sketching out some really deep concepts I usually get a “Oh I know what you’re talking about. My Uncle Bob does that.”

    Thus was born the "Uncle Bob Test."

    That’s what’s bothered me about so much of today’s ideologies and rhetoric. Human behavior shouldn’t be hard for humans to understand. Yet with much of it you have to have spent four years being indoctrinated ...excuse me ‘educated’ before it becomes an obvious truth. Other times it’s an accepted truth/paradigm in a subculture; sometimes to the point of having to be born into and raised with it. Sure it’s a obvious truth then. Otherwise you can’t understand it. (Often you’ll even be told that by someone who does believe it.) Except when that’s your perspective anyone not like you looks at you like you’re an alien — especially when you’re talking about them and how they think. (A good example of this is when an academic tries to 'explain' poverty to poor people.)

    This kind of cognitive disconnect means one of two things. One you’re living on completely different planets and talking about different species. Or two, that particular version of 'universal truth' isn’t all that universal.

    Remember that point about 'simple' language? Always run the Uncle Bob test with people who have tried to redefine common words to mean something else. Take for example the new and improved definition of racism. The old definition ran along the lines of blindly hating someone and thinking you’re superior because of race, religion and nationality. Okay you can see Bob doing that.

    But can you really see him doing the systematic and institutionalized oppression, denial of civil rights and economic discrimination of people of color resulting in material and cultural advantages conferred on a majority by privileged white elites? Because, that’s the new and improved 'definition' of racism used by many. According to this version, even though Bob drives a truck for the regional supermarket chain he and his family are racist elites. (In case you’re having trouble getting your head around that. know a) it doesn’t make any sense to anybody who is white and is getting screwed by the same system and b) you either have to be born into the correct race or be educated in the proper fields before it makes sense. Yes, I’ve seen it taken this far and beyond.)

    Now does that mean there aren’t very real problems and issues that need to be addressed in society? Not at all. We certainly do need to sit down and talk with each other and find solutions. But see, the key word in that last sentence is ‘with.’ We’ve had enough talking at each other. Except the extremists of sides want to keep that from happening so they redefine the problem to where there is no possible solution—except theirs. More than that, they don't want discussion, their strategy is to shut down conversation—even if they have to get up in your face and scream.

    Also a a free tip, watch for people who won’t let you bring critical issues to the conversation. That’s another way of controlling the definition of the problem (and keep it only being run through one filter). This is another use for Uncle Bob. Would Bob understand how that isn’t part of the problem? Take for example the argument that the criminal behavior (records) and gang affiliations of homicide ‘victims’ has nothing with gun deaths. If Uncle Bob wouldn’t buy it, don’t you —even if you think you’re smarter than him.

    Eighth — Listen more than once.

    Okay so you may need to take some Pepcid AC with you for this. But remember I said keep an eye out for crazy? Well this allows you to filter for that as well as making sure you get the whole picture.But it's more than that. Often an individual can’t explain an idea very well and by talking to several people you get different variations of the same perspective. This is useful when someone can’t explain an aspect well, but that other person can. Many a time I’ve had things— things that didn’t make sense before— click when someone else explained it. (Usually because the first person didn’t understand it fully.)

    The flip side of this coin, is after you’ve listened a few times, you’re under no obligation to hear the same thing over and over again—especially if you’ve decided the idea is bullshit. (That’s why the unpacking is important). “I’ve heard the argument you’re using before, and it was as full of holes the first five times as it is now.”

    Just so you know, people who demand that you listen, take to their heels when you can can recite their own argument back to them and then proceed to explain why it doesn’t work outside a very narrow perspective. Usually they haven’t really thought about it, they’re just parroting. They bug out because someone who has thought about it is out of their league. (In case you missed the implication, a lot of this behavior boils down to bullying.)

    Ninth — Don’t be afraid to acknowledge validity (or un-workability) of an idea.

    More than that, don’t be afraid to admit some points are really good. If you’ve done your homework you’ll see them. There’s more than a few. However, that doesn’t mean you have to accept the entire philosophy. Just because something has 25% good points, those don’t outweigh the 75% that’s off. In the same vein, just because something has a 25% off rate doesn’t make it complete BS.

    Also feel free to admit ‘you can’t get there from here.’ There are some ideas that sound really good, but because of technology, cost or human nature, they just won’t work.

    Tenth — Agree to disagree

    You don’t have to debate, you can do dialectic. You don’t know the difference? A debate means you’re trying to win. So is the other person. It’s really easy to get ego involved and when you run out of intellectual steam get emotional, nasty and angry. A dialectic is when two people who think differently discuss those positions to find a deeper truth than either. You’ll find the latter a lot more useful than winning. You’ll definitely learn more.

    Thing is you can be friends with people who hold different opinions than you. If not that, at least friendly with. The trick is learning to agree to disagree. This is a particular topic you either don’t talk about it from then on or are particularly respectful and polite when you do discuss it. (I mean hey if the Republican spinmiester and Democrat spinmiester can be married...)

    And if that doesn’t work, well you tried. Besides do you really want someone in your life who can’t behave themselves?

    So there it is a list of ten things you can do to see the other person’s perspective. Now you may have noticed that there are some things I didn’t mention. Like how do you tell the person your point of view?

Really do you have to?

And if you still feel the need I’m going to recommend you take everything I have said and apply it to yourself and your own ideology. It’s a lot easier to find the holes in your own ideals before you get all gung ho about showing someone you’re right only to discover a freeway sized hole in what you’re saying. M

Weaponizing identity and "screw you compassion"

 "Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining." 

"THANK YOU!" was my response when I heard that. There were three of us in the room. Piss/rain  was the second person's response to the bullshit  the third was laying down over being challenged about the rotten thing he'd done.  After a lifetime of dealing with con men, hustlers, liars, sociopaths, manipulators, addicts, and thieves, you might say I've had more than my fair share of being lied to and people trying to manipulate me to their advantage. So that saying came both as breath of fresh air and great way to communicate, "I know what you're doing, so knock it off."

While I've encountered all kinds of strategies it should be noted, there's a rising tide of "You have to accept someone because of a 'label' and if you don't you're a horrible person."

Ummm. No. No I don't.

Not only because I'm not in the habit of ignoring someone's bad behavior (especially when it's aimed at me), but trying to tell me— that to be a good person— I have to put up with piss/rain situation, doesn't go over too well with me. I especially mean this when such demands are backed up with implied or stated threats of what will happen if I don't drink that particular Kool-Aid. Why do I say that? Too many times I've seen the 'logic' of "If you don't agree with my grandiose claims then you're a bad person" used as a justification to attack. An attack that comes not just with a strong a sense of self-righteousness, but complete moral superiority. (Think the Blues Brothers but instead of saying "We're on a mission from God," saying "We're on a mission from identity politics.")

With that in mind, I'd like to present the meme that triggered the very long analysis that follows. An analysis that shows why a label does not equal a free pass. (No matter how hard someone tries to argue that it does.)

Some background. The woman who posted it is A) well liked. B) Has children with various sexual identities and C) thought it was a "Live and let live" message.

Other people didn't see it that way.

I was one of them. I didn't just see it as a "Oh that's just rain on your back" strategy, but also a deliberate propaganda piece. Something that exploited the idea of "live and let live" to the detriment of those who believe it and gave advantage to those with predatory agendas through exploiting the "live and let live" idea. Most of all I saw it as a way to shut down discussion, not just about various subjects, but also forced silence about problems, misconduct and other issues that cause negative reactions.

A very long and intense argument ensued between people who saw it as "a noble call for tolerance and compassion" and those who saw it as an attack strategy disguised as 'a noble call for tolerance and compassion.'  After a while it became clear who on the "noble call for tolerance and compassion" side actually felt that way and who was trying to protect a propaganda strategy hiding behind 'a noble call for tolerance and compassion.'

You should know that while I do agree with the ideas of tolerance, live and let live, and not labeling people as an excuse for misconduct—what sets me apart from most is— I consider that to be a two-way street. 

Putting that into the vernacular of my youth, "If you want tolerance, respect, and non-aggression don't fuck other people over."

While the street version is way shorter, what follows is break down of all the ways (current) calls for tolerance and compassion are being weaponized to not only pressure you into not standing up for yourself, but to actively screw you over— because you are compassionate.

***

Lemme see if I can explain this from another angle. Sorry for the length, but it's a deep idea.

Let's start with "Live and let live" is a good, everyday, working paradigm for getting along in modern society. If followed, it lets people take care of their business and gives them opportunity to fulfill their needs. Not necessarily their wants, but their needs. (That distinction is important.)

Unfortunately a lot of people fall down on that basic concept. Not just the 'live and let live,' but take care of your business and try to get along. Their version is more "I get to do what I want and screw you."

Often this falling has it's roots in putting wants before getting needs. Prioritizing our wants can push us into problematic behavior. Again—often— this behavior can put us into conflict with others—especially when said behavior infringes, challenges, or bothers others.

The above statements are fundamental, neutral and apply to a wide spectrum of people and circumstances. In other words, I don't want to hear 'whataboutism' to argue and prove me wrong—especially because most of those 'what abouts' are next level and ignore the basics I just laid out. In light of what I'm about to say next, I particularly don't want to hear stories about "I wasn't doing anything and I was targeted because I'm _____."

Humans have certain patterns of thoughts/behavior that we don't subjectively recognize in ourselves, but can easily spot when others do it —especially when it comes to status and feelings. Take for example insult and displaying contempt. We're hypersensitive to it being done to us, but when we do it to others, it's always for a good reason—if we even realize that we're doing it. Another important aspect is how quickly we 'forget' that we just did it. Although rationalizing it away is also a common behavior when we can't convincingly pretend we didn't do it.

I tell you this because —while you can be targeted at near 'randomness' because someone is looking for an excuse to go off and you fit a pet peeve— a VAST majority (as in over 85%) of the conflicts we get involved in are based on behavior. That includes YOUR behavior.

To half-quote Peyton Quinn did you insult, threaten, challenge, or command someone? (You can do this with nothing more than an eye roll, a contemptuous expression and tongue click.) Behavior more than any particular identifier is what is going to paint a target on your chest.

This is why any claim or story of "Someone came after me for no reason" or "Someone came after me because I'm _____ (insert identifier)" needs to be taken not with a grain, but an entire salt lick. Because I'll bet dollars to doughnuts, that there was some kind of insult or challenge—even if it was just telling as selfish and pushy person "no." Which usually, it's a whole lot more than that. (As in the difference between a firm 'no' and 'fuck you.') Basically we're really good at spotting wrongs done to us, but we're bad at both recognizing or admitting the wrongs we do to others. That HAS to be factored in anytime someone is telling a story about how they were wronged—especially when that wrong is being laid at the alter of a label.

There's also something else. Certain clusters of behaviors and attitudes are known indicators of trouble. You don't know how it will manifest, but sooner or later things will go off the rails with someone who has them. You can deny this. You can be as open-minded and accepting as you want, but —as sure as the sun will come up tomorrow—someone with those traits WILL manifest chaos in your life. Also, as long as they are in your life, odds are it's going to be a repeating pattern. (A good argument can be made that it's because they will continually put their wants above everything else.) After people have experience with being burned by those with these clusters, they become wary of letting other people who have them into their lives.  (It's called postjudice.)

Things become really problematic when we sweep all of this aside and blame bias against particular identifier as the cause of negative results. You should know a serious red flag is when someone tells you you HAVE to sweep everything else aside and bow down to the power of the label (or risk being labeled a 'bad person' if you don't.)

Also there's something else you should know. When a group takes on an identity and has

* accepting certain beliefs

* a history/mythology

* encourages/accepts certain behaviors

as a requirement of 'membership' you've set the stage for conflict with other 'groups.' This primarily because identity groups have to have 'villains' in their narrative. This is an even stronger unifier than shared customs. If a group labels you as a 'bad person' or a member of a villain group, that paints a target on your chest—no matter how loudly members of the first group claim it doesn't.

What I've spoken of is mostly background and applies to people in general. But it's necessary information for what I'm about to say next.

Now I'm going to address why that meme is actually far, far away from expressing the sentiment of 'live and let live.' But first I would like to point something out

Someone rhetorically asked

>>So how would you word it in a way that says you have the right to feel however you feel, but you do not have the right to violate other people's rights over it,...

My response

>Off the top of my head I'd say...

you have the right to feel however you feel, but you do not have the right to violate other people's rights over it (period, not a comma).

>You might recognize the wording. That's not pointing fingers, claiming special privileges, or promoting a >victimhood/oppressor narrative.

(The reason for the period not comma comment was she bundled in lawmaking which is not only a separate issue but muddles this issue.)

Her words pretty well sum up a neutral, live and let live attitude. (Yay her.) It applies equally to everyone without any identifiers, blame, power maneuvering, or identity politics/narrative.

That is where the original meme not only fell down hard, but high dived into an empty pool. And for several reasons.

First, because it identifies specific 'victims' and paints specific 'villains' as victimizers. Whether you call them catch phrases/dog whistles/ slogans/ buzzwords, certain words/terms are attached to particular narratives. Their very use brings up a trainload of assumptions, associations and 'baggage.' This is a conditioned response and it is NOT from the rational part of your brain. (So don't try to tell me it doesn't happen because YOU 'don't do it.' If you're human you do it.)

Second, because those categories are gross over-generalizations

Third, because not everyone in said identity groups are angels, nor are they all demons

Fourth it puts an onus of behaviors on one group about behavior, but doesn't do the same to the 'victim' groups.

Fifth, by implication it glosses over misconduct from said 'victims' that causes negative reactions.

Sixth, again more by implication and also a starting premise, it blames others for having a negative reaction to behaviors.

Seventh, instead of acknowledging that unwanted behavior has an affect on negative reaction, it espouses a monolithic causation as the source of these results.

Eighth, this monolithic causation is more a matter of 'faith' and belief than a clearly identified and demonstrable existing condition. (If you believe, it's a self-evident truth, but to people outside your faith, not so much.)

Ninth, and this one is real hard for true believers to acknowledge, blaming others for their bias against your identity group often is used as an excuse to attack others. (Those on your side are just as capable of hatred, oppression, aggression, and excess as those you hate for those exact behaviors.)

Tenth, as was pointed out —and then deleted— that meme 'triggered' a lot of people who have experience being attacked in such a manner. I'll add that those attacks often came under the pretense of compassion and 'live and let live.'  (Maybe it's time to look at the ninth point again.)

Eleventh, that meme was chock-full of identifiers and narrative-related terminology relating to victimhood. These are redflags that it's not an honest message, but propaganda.

Twelve, it has been argued that because it wasn't explicit in naming who it was aimed at, those who disagreed were reading too much into it. I'll point you back to point eleven before stating there is no chance it wasn't deliberate.  One narrative-phrase maybe. Two is shaky. But when you get that many —up to and including the Rainbow Flag border—claiming it was the reader's problem is pissing down someone's back and telling them it's raining.

Finally I recently posted "Beware those who dismiss out of hand that their cherished ideals can be weaponized."

So yeah, some people are going to see the meme in a positive sense because on the surface they think it promotes ideas they believe. More than that it reconfirms what they believe. But to those who have been painted as designated villain, they have stable data about this sort of manipulation and attack strategy.

And guess what folks. Anger over mistreatment has become a two way street.

But let's take a closer look at using a label as a free pass—especially when that label is part of a  "We've been victimized because we're _______"  strategy. Make no mistake, it is a strategy. One that is often used to get over on you.

When you look at all the behaviors that cause conflict and negative reactions, it is usually a cornucopia. Lots and lots of little —and often not so little— things. That's why it's such a red flag when someone tries to claim there's a monolithic causation behind what's happening.

"You only saying that because, I'm ______"

"No, I'm saying that because you're an asshole. You being _____ has nothing to do with it, but you using it as an excuse just makes you a bigger asshole."

Yeah, that's a conversation I've had on many occasion when it was my job to tell people "no." It's also a conversation I've had on a number of times when I was in management. Speaking with others in similar positions, I've found that is an all too common experience. Pretty much the only things that changes are the intensity and how the situation is handled.

People should not get a free pass over their bad behavior because of a label. Or because of a narrative of past victimization. But that has become de rigueur. It has in fact, become a powerful weapon of intimidation and harassment against both people AND businesses.

Take for example a co-worker of my daughter. He was a terrible, lazy and unreliable employee that everyone complained to management about. (They were getting saddled with his workload.) Management did nothing except continue to shove his workload onto everyone else—and they were understaffed anyway. Nor did management talk to him or try to improve conditions. It was obviously they'd chosen this course of action because of his skin color. When finally his behavior became egregious enough that the store manager did explain that he had to show up and on time or he would be terminated (this was done in front of witnesses) he physically attacked her. Yes he was fired, the cops called, he was informed he wasn't allowed in the store again (property rights). And the icing on the cake? He not only tried to sue, but he went to the state employment office and filed a discrimination complaint against the company.

I have knowledge and experience of incidents like this going back forty years. That's why it's so annoying when people deny that identity has been weaponized on a grander scale than just personal incredulity. We are being told to dismiss every other factor and that the only thing that matters is that label. More specifically that the reason there were negative results is oppression and hatred against that label.

Another version is when they try to tell you stories of wrongs done to them because of their preferred label. Those stories very seldom include details that would undermine the claim that they were fired, evicted, turned down, etc., because they were __________.

Uhhh no. Not only not buying it, but quit trying to piss down my back and tell me it's raining.

This especially when it moves into the realm of outright propaganda. Personally part of why this meme made me growly is —whether you can see it or not—is it seems innocuous on the surface, but it is a well crafted DARVO* weapon. That goes beyond just an individual trying to get over on you and into a whole different field. 

* Deny Attack Reverse Victim Offender.

Analyzing Violence: Twelve points to be taken into account.

Get a cup of coffee. Even with my ability to make complex subjects simple, this is going to take a while. 

    Add to that, I'm taking a wide spectrum approach. What I'm talking about has three uses. Which one you choose is up to you.
        1) To give you tools to assess what you're being told about an incident. 
        2)  So you can recognize when someone who is opining about an incident
              a) if they understand what's involved, or 
              b) if they are having a knee jerk reaction.
        3) Show how these same elements will apply if you have to defend yourself.

    With any incident there are are four —arguably five—overlapping considerations. Think of them as different filters to run an incident through to gain understanding. A) how violence/crime works, B) the law, C) how the legal system works, and D) what were the circumstances of the incident? When run through these filters  the outcome is often rather damning. That's why people often try to introduce a fifth consideration —that of ideology and/or social narrative. That distracts people from A-D. 

    How can that become problematic? Let's look back at number two. Every time the news reports someone getting killed legions of instant-experts on law, self-defense and use of force magically appear across social media. These folks know...wait, I'm sorry, let me rephrase that... they KNOW WHAT HAPPENED! And by gawds they're going to tell you what to think about it. 

     The problem is they usually aren't running it through the four filters, but often only through the fifth —and questionable— one. When these people are preaching (because that's usually what they're doing), I'm sitting over here drinking my coffee with the ghost of Wolfgang Pauli. Pauli was a theoretical physicist who upon reading a crackpot paper written by a student, famously exclaimed "That's not only not right, it's not even wrong."

    Nobody likes to be told they're wrong.  While we can all be wrong now and then, this is way beyond that. I mention Pauli because to reach the level he was talking about, you have to compile misunderstanding, misinformation, ignorance, and dismissal of those four filters. I'm talking a layer cake of "that's not how it works," "there's other ways to look at it," misinformation, partial information, and outright lies the person believes. All of which the person  is usually ferocious about defending. Often they are dismissive of other people's knowledge and direct experience with the subject.  I can almost hear them say (because I actually have been challenged this way), "Oh yeah and what makes you an expert?"

     Ummm, how about that I actually am a court recognized expert witness on —among other things—self-defense and violence reconstruction?  In this job there are key elements I assess and analyze. Yes, I've testified and undergone cross-examination to defend my conclusions. On top of that I have nearly thirty books and videos published on the subject of violence and have taught these topics internationally.

     "Yeah okay, sure. Fine. But my opinion is just as valid as yours!"

     Hate to tell you this Sparky, but there's a difference between an opinion and an analysis. Now you might think I should have used the word "conclusion" there— which I could have. I'm about to share twelve key points to be taken into account, the process to come to a conclusion AND an informed opinion. (But even the latter is less useful than a solid conclusion based on evidence and analysis.)

     Let's start with you can instantly form an opinion on one 'fact' and a whole lot of baggage. By baggage I mean what you believe and what-you-think-you-know. Often this baggage has absolutely nothing to do with the incident, how 'things' work (e.g., law and the legal system), or the dynamics of violence (i.e., how violence happens). Instead these are social narratives you have come to believe because you've been told them so often. (e.g., 'police shooting are driven by skin color' or 'I'd rather be judged by twelve than carried by six.)  But because you believe it to be true, it is —to you at least—unquestionably true. In a very real sense, your 'understanding' of an incident is plug-and-play. Because you 'know' all this other stuff, your opinion of a situation is an automatic extension of those beliefs.

     And usually deserve Pauli wagging his ghostly finger at you.

      Conclusions, on the other hand, take time, effort, knowledge and a firm understanding of the process. A big part of that is you don't form a conclusion until you have as much relevant information as possible. In plain English, conclusions are reached a lot of step-by-step, slow work. Work that can be documented, verified, understood, and defended.  Opinions don't meet this standard—no matter how loud someone is about defending theirs.

     Another standard opinions don't reach is: The addition of extra (or clarification of) factors WILL change the conclusion. 

     Let me give you an example. Some years ago the self-defense world was in an uproar about an 'innocent' in England who 'defended' himself against home invaders with a 'samurai sword.' The outrage was over he was charged with murder. Oh the injustice! The undermining of our right to self-defense!  Yeah right sure. While that was  the narrative, there was more to the story. A whole lot more. What those who confuse opinion with conclusion missed was:
A- He was a drug dealer working out of his flat (apartment),
B- It was a home invasion/robbery of drugs and money,
C- After the initial threat of violence, the home invaders had tied him up then ransacked the place,
D- After they left the apartment, he finished freeing himself,
E - He grabbed the sword, ran into the hallway, chased them down the stairs where he sliced one,
F- The rest ran out of the building and down the street,
G- He caught up to one more and killed him.

     Little different than the 'he's in prison for self-defense' narrative, isn't it? Aside from there being enough felonies to go around for everyone, from the moment he laid hand on the sword, he'd left self-defense. But to this day there are still people convinced he went to prison for 'defending himself.'

     Welcome to my world. When it comes to violence, there isn't just a lot of unfamiliarity about what is 'actually' involved (as opposed to baggage), but there's a lot of misinformation. Much of that is intentional.  That has to be considered whenever someone is giving you their opinion about what happened (Because often it's accompanied with why you should believe and respond a certain way to this tragic and wrongful death.)  That's no longer opinion, it's an agenda.

     So, instead of just falling into the opinion trap, what do you look at to do an analysis? Well a short and fast twelve point check list. (There's more, but let's start with these).

1. Illegal activity
2. Participation
3. Location
4. History
5. Advance/retreat
6. Known danger
7.  Presenting/ Doing (Known Danger)
8. Level of response
9. Murder, manslaughter, line of duty, self-defense
   
10. Duty to act
11. Small but important details
12. What isn't known

    One— Was there illegal activity involved?

    By this  I don't mean petty licensing or nit-picky details, I mean crime and/or major illegal behavior. Newsflash, most homicide 'victims' are involved in criminal/illegal activity. A good measure for this is at the time of death being on parole or probation. Or, as was the case in the UK, being an active drug dealer. 

    From a public standpoint there are many people who are happy to dismiss criminal activity as a small and insignificant detail, but to the legal system and the rest of us, it's kind of a big thing. A thing that is not so easily dismissed.

    This is especially true when it comes to police involved shootings. What was the behavior that got the police involved in the first place? Contrary to the popular narratives about these incidents, people are not shot for petty crimes.  But it is true is illegal behavior is what originally caused police involvement. It's when the situation escalated to violence/resisting arrest that force was used.  


    Two— Participation.

    Getting all legal argle-bargely and specific, was the person actively engaging in the creation, escalation and execution of the violence? In layman's terms, was the person (who used force or it was used on) part of the problem? A problem that resulted in violence.

    When I mention this often people try to find loopholes and excuses. So let me set the foundation for understanding. I'm not talking about you walking to your car, some stranger tries to mug you and you defend yourself. That isn't the type of 'participation' I'm talking about.  I'm talking about you marching over to your neighbor's house to confront him over his dog pooping on your lawn— and things escalating.

    Part of what confuses people is legally it doesn't matter what someone 'meant to do.' What matters is what the person did. Participation is a really tricky subject that lawyers try to push up and down the field like a football. But know, this is where most people blow it. While the whole situation will be gone over with a microscope to find fault with what someone did in the lead up to violence, more times than not it was mutual participation. Participation that's about as easy to spot as a buffalo stampede. (At least to everyone else, the adrenalized and emotional participants usually doesn't see it that way.)


    Three— Location

    Where did it happen?  Simple question right? The answer is a game changer. While many people are convinced that their rights trump all, it really helps to understand that "rights come in bundles." Bundles that often rub up against each other. Your right to do something stops at the point where someone else's rights begin.  One of the bigger examples is property rights. 

    The absolute simplest example is he on your property or are you on his? The rights and privileges of the property owner is a strong influence on how things will be looked at. Sounds easy right? Yeah about that. Are we talking private property without public access? (For example, your home.) Private property that allows limited access? (For example a business that allows paying customers.) Private property with a much wider public access? (For example a mall.) A public thoroughfare (sidewalk), park or public parking structure? Or are we talking government property/building (For example City Hall vs. a military base.)

    It's sad that so many people don't understand how such a 'small detail' should matter. Let me put it to you this way, it can be the difference between you shooting someone who broke into your house and threatened you in you bedroom, and you shooting someone whose house you were in. 

    While ownership/legal control of a property carries great weight,what doesn't —and in fact can weigh against someone—is when two parties/side decide to clash on the 'property' of someone else. This includes public property.  This gets complicated, but often problems arise because people don't understand, "Nobody has more rights on the sidewalk than someone else."

    This brings up the idea of 'turf.'  Yes, I'm talking about  gang warfare kind of turf. Certain ideologies and ethnic groups have decided that sections, if not whole cities, 'belong' to them. A lot of ideological and political violence arises from one group daring to enter what another considers their turf. Stop and take a moment to consider the implications of one group of citizens trying to run another group 'out of their town.' Aside from the sheer arrogance of that assumption, it often leads to physical violence.

    Four— History/ Build up/ Affiliation/ Pursuit of a quarrel.

    This is a bit of a catch-all consideration that goes beyond just the creation and escalation that immediately proceeds an incident. If you know what a 'time horizon' (in investment and planning) is reverse it.  This not only is what happened before the two sides came into proximity of each other during the incident, it can be preexisting situations, sometimes dating back years. Number four can come in many forms and flavors

    For example, the Mongols and the Hells Angels have long standing enmity that periodically flares up and bodies hit the floor. Then peace is negotiated again and the cycle starts over again.  This makes any incident less about the specific, but part of an ongoing pattern. Other groups like Antifa and Proud Boys go out of their way to run into each other. To the point of planning, announcing, gearing up, and traveling to where they're going to 'run into each other.' Many a person sitting in prison today, made the decision to put a weapon in their pocket 'just in case' before they left their homes to go 'straighten things out' with someone.

    The example I like to use is Raul Rodriguez in Texas. There was a noisy party down the street that he'd called the county police (who had responded and the volume was turned down), but things weren't enough for Rodriguez. Early in the morning Rodriguez strapped on his gun and filmed himself leaving his property and then stood across the street, shining a flashlight, and recorded the party. (This would later be adjudged that he left his property in pursuit of a quarrel.) When a confrontation resulted he called 911 again reported he was in fear for his life and then shot three people, killing one.  His original conviction of 40 years, turned into a life sentence after his appeal failed.  In both his trial and the appeal his history of conflict with his neighbors was introduced as proof that the shooting was part of ongoing troubles and bad choices.

    Raw truth most homicides occur between people who know each other. While certain crimes, police shootings and political/identity violence can occur between strangers, know this relationship issue will be —and deserves to be—looked at very closely. If there is a history of conflict, that's a game changer.

    Five—Advance or Retreat.

    Which way are participants moving at the time of the violence? Are both of them moving aggressively towards each other?  One advancing, one standing?  One advancing, one retreating? One standing, one retreating. Both backing away (this occasionally happens with shootings). While not an absolute, the direction someone is moving is usually indicative of aggression.

    There are three complications in this. Orientation, Predatory Pause, and After Attack Withdraw. 

    Orientation just means which direction is the person facing? If someone is shot in the front that means they were oriented on the shooter. That's an important factor in considering if that person was offering the shooter a threat.  Was he oriented on and closing distance with the shooter? But what about if the back is turned? Without the presence of a gun, if someone has turned his back and is running, odds are he's trying to escape. So unless you have a duty to act or there are extremely specialized circumstance, chasing him is crossing the line. Got that? Chasing someone puts you in the wrong. So too does shooting him the back as he's running away. On the other hand, if a gun is present it's real easy to be running in one direction and shooting back the way you came. (Like I said, it's not cast in iron.)

    Predatory pause doesn't mean the danger is over, it's simply paused while the predator decides what to do in the face of unexpected resistance. This is something difficult for people —inexperienced dealing with predators and the lifestyle violent—to understand. Yet, it's a well known, but often poorly articulated reality for those who are experienced with predators. Many people in the self-defense world think if they pull a weapon, the 'bad guy' will  turn and run. Why shouldn't he? That's what they would do. They're shocked when that doesn't happen. Odds are good predators and violent people have looked down the barrel of a gun before. They might have even have been shot before and survived. As such, this pause is neither a cessation of aggression or him changing his mind. It's him deciding what he's going to do next. Yes he could decide to back off or, he's just as likely to decide to continue to attack. So just because someone momentarily stops advancing (or even takes a step back) that doesn't mean the danger has passed.  It's not over until he's out of attack range. 

    After-Attack-Withdraw this is where things get complex, real complex. I'm going to take a hugely complicated subject and try to reduce for fast and easy communication. Start with the English language falls down on a distinction. Is an "attack" a single action (e.g., a punch) or collective actions (e.g., a beating)? We use attack interchangeably —and that causes all kinds of confusion.  A very common occurrence during a loud argument is one person steps forward, strikes, steps back, and continues to yell and threaten.  Make no mistake, a physical attack (first definition) has happened. But, it was more of a bluff than a committed attack (second definition). This behavior part of a threat display/display aggression pattern, and —this might confuse people— that attack (singular) is an attempt to intimidate, not injure. Will it work? Well that depends on many things. What happens next will determine if further physical violence will occur. However—and this is why a single step back is not necessarily a retreat or the end of violence—the hostile person who just struck is still in attack range and 'posing' an immediate threat. And there's another English stumble. By posing' do we mean legally (presenting an immediate danger)? Or common usage (pretending and/or displaying a false image)?  The answer is "It depends." But a good rule of thumb is 'still hostile while in attack range means the danger isn't gone.' It could go either way.

    This advancing, retreating issue is a critical component of "immediate threat." Another factor is how fast the closing of distance happens. Again, a complicated subject worth looking into, this is just an introduction.

    Six —Known Danger

   Known danger is pre-existing knowledge that a behavior is (or circumstances are) dangerous. It's basically 'how you knew' something was dangerous. Let me put that in plain English, it's not what you knew, but how you knew it. This can come from training or experience. Having said that, six and seven are two sides of the same coin. 

    But six is the more academic or experienced-based knowledge. It's the understanding and knowledge you have before the incident. Once again going into legal argle bargle it's known dangerous behavior likely to result in injury or death. In layman's terms it's how you knew the screaming, naked, crazy charging you waving a knife was dangerous.

    That may sound absurd (i.e., who doesn't know a crazed attacker with a knife isn't dangerous?). But it is an important element in both a legal context and in analysis. This is where you get into more than just 'would a reasonable person understand the danger of what was happening?' You also have  did the person who acted have extra training on—or experience with — how danger works?

    Often people without experience refuse to listen to experienced people telling them how dangerous a set of behaviors behavior is.  What they also don't understand is how fast things can happen or how easily it is to be rendered helpless if you wait to long.  Understand it's always a balance between acting too early and acting too late. Lacking the context of known danger, it's difficult to make an accurate assessment of what to do and to understand what happened.

    Seven — Presenting/ Doing (Known Danger)

    This is the non-academic side of six. This isn't knowledge, it's action. What was the person doing  at the moment someone else acted?  That is a simple question with profound implications.  Again, this is an incredibly complex subject with many factors. 

    An example of which, is how long will it take for countermeasures to take effect? If an individual is engaging in dangerous behavior, how long will it be before that attack 'lands?' Will your countermeasures stop him before then or are you going to be trading damage if you wait too long?  Or —and this is an important consideration—given the circumstances will a lesser level of force 'solution' work in the available time you have. If not, then it's off the table as a viable option. 

    You should know that six and seven are where people looking for an excuse to condemn (especially when they're operating from a 'baggage' perspective) don't just 'not understand,' but often do so intentionally. This can range from, 'they don't know and they don't want to know,' to —the far worse —know, but pretend not to know (e.g., a prosecutor intent on prosecuting no matter what). 

    Eight — Appropriate Level of Response

    What is the least amount of force it would take to end the danger? Sounds like an easy question, right?  It's not. Let's add some conditions. What is the minimum amount of force necessary to effectively end the danger — in the available time? Putting that concept of available time in personal terms, how much time do you have before the attacker puts you into the hospital?

Let's start by saying there are people who believe no use of force is ever appropriate. We'll just set them aside for the moment so we can look at reality. On one hand, we have failure from using insufficient force. The most recognizable version is trying to defend yourself and getting rolled over by an attacker who is using more force. 

    On the other hand, there's excessive force. Excessive force comes in two main flavors, too much and too long. Conceptually 'too much' could be understood as shooting someone because they shoved you. That is considered disproportionate to the danger that persons action poised. 'Too long' is you keep attacking after the threat from the other person has ended. Basically you're beating him after he's down or is now trying to escape. It really doesn't matter the reason for these continuing attacks, it's that you keep on going on.

    In these last sections I've given you four aspects to consider when it comes to levels of force. This whether it is you deciding what level you need or looking at how much was used in an incident.  Here they are summarized.

1. Will it work?
2. Will it work in time?
3. Is it disproportional to the danger?
4. Did it stop when the threat stopped?

     When police have to use force, you will encounter no end of instant-experts who will condemn them. Those four points I just gave you allow for a much more reliable criteria to assess appropriate use of the officer's force. Do police occasionally go overboard with force? Yes, they do. However, those four points are overwhelmingly the case with police use of force. There is another issue that I'll mention in passing, that's the difference between stopping a threat and putting someone into a position to be cuffed. Officers often have to use force until someone is safely cuffed. Even then, some people continue to attack and resist while cuffed. So look for that as well.

    Let's talk about those people we set aside earlier. There are many people who are operating from a baggage-is-my-guide perspective who might consider one or two of those. The key word in that last sentence is 'might.' I've not only run across people who believe any force is excessive, regardless of the situation, but that anyone who does is evil and wrong. Many  also believe owning a gun should be illegal. They also tend to believe that any death is automatically murder. These are the assumptions (often unstated) they are arguing from. Which brings us to the next point. 


    Nine—Murder, Manslaughter, Line of Duty, and Self-Defense

     While those are all homicides (death caused by another human), legally speaking, they are not the same thing. Each mean something very specific and are varying degrees of 'bad.' Some are punishable, some can be legally justified. While it may be a reach to say they are clearly defined, they are understood as different. In court, the challenge is to prove that an incident met with a particular criteria. 

    Even in common parlance (where people don't know the exact details) it's understood there are differences in these terms. That's why you should be careful of someone who tries to frame any homicide as murder. Often this goes past simple sloppy thinking and moves into agenda. They're using the word 'murder' because of the horrible connotations it has. 

    This includes when it's the District Attorney's office.  First, in these days of plea bargaining, it is not uncommon to hang a higher charge on someone with intent to let it be plead down. (Another common strategy is to pile on so many charges there is no chance of being acquitted on all of them.) Second, anytime something is caught up in the news cycle odds are it is going to go political. When it goes political —I need to put a caveat here—while not automatic, in a vast majority of the case, the prosecutor will find the highest crime possible to prosecute. This includes if you have to squat down, turn your head and squint to see how the prosecutor can try to prosecute that particular crime given the circumstances. But once again, it's political —especially if there's a special prosecutor assigned to the case from outside the district.

    I'd also like to point out people who want to paint a situation in the worst way possible will often grab onto these politically motivated charges and use that as their justification for claiming it was 'murder.' After all, that's what the prosecutor said it was. So it must be true. A small—but rather important detail— is you can be charged with something, but that's not the same thing as a conviction. To get a murder conviction the prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the higher crime. Often they fail to do so. (If you remember George Zimmerman, was convicted neither on the charge of murder or manslaughter —despite the special prosecutor's best efforts.)

Ten- Duty to Act

    Many self-defense laws start out with a qualifier like "may use," "can use" or "is justified.'  That basically means —as a citizen—you don't have to act. In fact, it's encouraged that you don't. 

    Police and military don't have that luxury. They have what's called  "a duty to act." They are legally obligated to step up to situations that most people run from.  If they don't they can be sued, fired, and the department sued.  Now there are all kinds of complications, safety issues, and bigger picture considerations of that statement. But before you get lost in the weeds, know that those are exceptions. The majority of their time the police have to go into dangerous situations and engage with dangerous people, crazy people, angry people, and just plain stupid people. They won't know what the situation is until they get there. Worse, in the middle of it all, the situation can take a bad turn.

    What the police cannot do is let a violent or mentally unstable person in crisis 'just be.' Also once they become aware of a driver's intoxication police can't let that person drive away (or leave them in a position to do so.) Once the police are involved in those sort of situations there is no backing down. The further a situation goes the more force they are going to use. As they are legally required to do to keep the public—not the individual—safe, it's usually not going to work out well for the individual.

    There's something I mentioned in passing earlier. Despite how often it is interpreted as such by people intent on condemning the police, nobody is killed by the police for a petty crime. The initial contact may have been over a minor issue, but what lead to use of force was escalating actions after contact was  made. While police occasionally are responsible for unnecessary escalation and excessive force, in a vast majority of cases it's the person the police are dealing with who dictates the level of force that will be used against him.

    Medical students are often told "When you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras." In other words, when making a diagnosis look first to the likeliest causes rather than rare diseases. In the same manner, when it comes to the question of 'why did police use of force?' look first to the suspect's behavior. If the answer isn't there, then consider the possibility zebras.

    Eleven— Details (often small but important)

    I want to start with the bigger idea first. Certain details are small, but they have a far greater gravitational weight than laypeople imagine. A few years ago a bouncer was shot by police while —according to his family's lawyer—"he was just doing his job." Unfortunately, while there had been a shooting in the bar where he worked, the suspects fled. The bouncer had left the property of the bar, chased one of the shooters down and knocked him to the ground. He was kneeling on the back of the shooter with a gun to his head when police arrived. (Basically the bouncer looked like he was going to execute the actual shooter.)  The police were responding to a call about a shooting, but with precious little other information. It was night and the bouncer did not have a uniform on. The only item identifying him was a baseball hat with 'security' on it, yet he was off the property —past where his authorization from the owner ended. The officers claimed the bouncer didn't respond to order to put the gun down so he fired.  The bouncer didn't have a concealed carry permit for the gun and in Illinois it is illegal to carry a gun in a bar anyway. In addition, the bar itself was operating on an expired license and was functioning in an illegal after hours capacity (the shootings happened at 4 am, 'last call' in Illinois is 2 am). Each of the small details I listed make for a maze of complexities about that shooting. (BTW, did you notice how because of this 12 point list you now recognized why they were important?)

    The second part of this idea —and this tracks back to the difference between a conclusion and opinion—is you are NEVER going to get the full set of details 

• From a single media source
• Immediately after an incident

    As such do not form an opinion—disguised as a conclusion—on first reports. Those are inevitably wrong. Wait and gather more details.

    Equally important is often the details you get from particular media sources are going to be either factually wrong or agenda spun. The last especially applies to head lines. It takes time and effort to find as many relevant details as possible. So don't be a buyer of the first reports you hear about an incident.

    Twelve—What isn't known

    I'll conclude this list of twelve, with another list. 

1. What you know
2. What you know you don't know
3. What you don't know you don't know.

    A shorter version Known, Known-Unknowns, and Unknown-Unknowns (unk-unks).  Once you get the hang of using this list, you can run through it pretty fast.  That's a really useful habit to have.

    Earlier I mentioned one of the considerations/filters is knowing how violence/crime works. Let's hypothetically say there are five elements common to a kind of violence.  There will be varying details of those five, so that's no real thing. However, when a news source only tells you two, you know the other three that are missing from what you're being told. That is a known -unknown. Keep looking until you find them. In addition to you knowing what information is missing from what you're being told, you will also be able to spot when someone has formed an opinion based on insufficient knowledge. 

    The first two are pretty solid and easy to figure out. Unk-unks tend to be more shadow forces. You can't necessarily see them, but once you understand they exist, you can take things to the next level. In other words, on occasion you won't be able to figure out what is going with what is known and known-unknowns.  Getting allegorical if what is known and known unknown don't make sense, that's the footprint of an unk-unk. Something else is going on with the situation.  Something that is influencing the situation, but isn't clear and more importantly, isn't being talked about. To the average person, unk-unks are invisible. With a little experience though you start to recognize the foot print that an unk-unk is in play, even if you don't know what it is. 

    Let me give you an example of not only an unk-unk, but a cluster of them. With all the rioting going on in 2020, why weren't the rioters stopped? You may have all kinds of suspicions and opinions about why, but the real answer is a huge collection of unknown-unknowns. They will remain that way, because you weren't in the room when they were decided.

    When it comes to you having to defend yourself  the relevance of this idea is two fold. One is what you knew and didn't know at the time you acted. Two is you are going to be convicted or acquitted by what the jury is allowed to know or doesn't know about what happened.

    Conclusion

    So there it is. twelve things that must be taken into account with any violent incident. The question is will they be?

    Now much of what I have said here is to help you to analyze a situation that happens to someone else and you hear about it on the news or social media. In these days of narratives and media spin this  will be a handy set of tools to filter the misinformation and opinion driven perspectives you'll run across. (Or be attacked for not buying into the narrative.) Having these twelve points will help you recognize when the person who is opinioning about the incident hasn't actually analyzed it.  Often once an opinion is formed, Pauli's 'not even wrong' comes into play.

    But it goes beyond just that. If you are  involved in a self-defense situation, you will be facing these issues. These are things you need to bring to the attention of your attorney. Having said that, knowing these factors, you can do more research into them to help you with your use of force decisions. My final warning is be aware that some of these issues will come into play in whether or not you are charged or if you should even claim self-defense.