People get more upset at dangers involving other people even though they're a tiny fraction of the real risks like heart disease, cancer, suicide and car crashes. We evolved this bias, which worked well when getting murdered was a real risk, but it's maladaptive in a modern environment.
I think that you have all the answers to the questions you posted here on why people in general have disproportionate reactions to death caused by violence and death caused by accidents.
It's all about human agency and intentions. Terrorist attacks are carried out by HUMANS with the clear INTENTION of inflicting harm on the populace. Accidents on the other hand lack these essential factors. When I walk by a chemical plant, it never crosses my mind that the plant would attack me or be capable of doing such a thing and therefore I am not worried to be around but on the other hand if I happen to be walking in a bad neighborhood late at night, I would be very wary of people around me because I know very well that some of them might inflict harm on me for any reason.
So, I think that the comparison you drew between these two categories is not that solid and that people have every right to be "terrified" of terrorism and take all the precautionary measures to stop/prevent it.
Do you not empathize with how it affects the wellbeing of the citizen in question? Wouldn't you agree that fear of a persons life being in danger is not something we should allow?
Human beings will ultimately act like human beings in these situations. It's very easy to expect something else when you're not the human being under threat.
The only way to prevent human beings from acting in the default way human beings act is rigorous evidence-based training. No proposition that there must have been something else they could have done is meaningful unless it's backed up by specific, rigorous, evidence-based training for the situation in question.
Absent that, we're asking people to respond to threats unrealistically. We're making them sick and commanding them to be well.
I'm sure if it were to happen to me, I'd feel similar to the citizen posting this on Twitter, especially if they felt it was unjust and weren't expecting it.
However, from a police procedural point-of-view:
When the subject(s) perceive a threat, it only takes a small amount of time for the adrenaline rush that could make them more dangerous than they typically would be.
Subject(s) that would never usually be a threat can act in ways they don't even expect when they are confronted by something they perceive as a threat.
Even if the first subject is calm, one of the others in the house might react poorly and use whatever is at their disposal to resist or harm the perceived threat.
Let's say instead that a single plain-clothes officer calls or emails asking someone to come downtown, or maybe even comes to a house unexpectedly because they couldn't get in-touch with the person, then asks them to come downtown at their convenience. The subject may shortly after throw the kids in the car and speed off so quickly they run into traffic and kill themselves and another driver. So, when police control the situation, they cause a little more temporary stress in the short-term, but may avoid harm for the individual citizen and the rest of the citizens.
The alternative is a society within which each person acts responsibly on their own, but there are bad actors, and using science to treat or evolve bad actors is:
1. imagined as evil, such as in the fictional works:
Brave New World - example of dual-society, half utilitarian scientist gangbangers and the other half free natives; the reader understands the "evolved" culture as disgusting, scary, and harmful.
A Clockwork Orange - attempt to rehabilitate the psychopath, sex-addict subject, but due to the music choice, the psychopath becomes hurt when they play the music, leaving them where they started- with a psychopath.
2. actually evil in real life, for example: psychological and Eugenics experiments, as well as genocides and holocaust.
In social media bubbles, psychotic elements in the bubble tend to be hushed or hidden; they seem not to exist. In real-life, about 1 in 10 people are not sufficiently altruistic to be trusted to act on societal best interests under duress and about 1 in 100 people are psychopathic to the point of being a greater risk to others on any day of the year.
Even for a fully libertarian society to function, some part of the 90% would have to cover for the 10% and some portion of the 99% would have to cover for that 1% to make things run smoothly. So, we have police. And, if you add wild animals and wide open spaces without assistance into the mix, you understand why the U.S. has the 2nd amendment, and that applies to everywhere because it's meant to cover all cases and likely futures (if disaster happens and infrastructure collapses, we may need to hunt to survive, given the amount of space in the U.S.).
But, I don't want gun violence, and I don't want citizens to be unjustly apprehended.
Being yelled at, scared, (wrongfully) guilted, manipulated and lied to are violent and dangerous (in the negative effects on my life sense).
IMO it's violence and IMO the danger isnt in getting bruised/battered, but in losing the ability to carry out normal life for fear of what is "out there" on the streets. Safety isnt the only point, sure there maybe a low chance of issues, but safety is also about how people feel, do they feel secure? In this case I think its a resounding no, the behavior of many of these street people is outright disturbing and makes people, likely those least able of defending themselves, live with a burned of fear/insecurity.
reply