In this example there is enough evidence the suspect has been arrested by police, which is a public record. Not remotely the same as the Boston bomber reddit-misidentification case.
It is every bit the same and every bit as shitty a metric. Remember Richard Jewell?
The man's only crime was being the first person to find a live bomb and help people escape it before it then detonated and killed 100+ others. The fucker was a literal goddamn hero.
But then the media implied he was a sad loser rent-a-cop who planted a bomb so he could find it and pretend to be someone important for a day. It was absolutely depraved, and that's before the FBI started harassing him.
But hey, all's fair for anyone named as a suspect by law enforcement. They always get it right the first time around. Everyone who gets arrested is later convicted. They always kick down the right door before sending the SWAT team in.
I agree, but we can't only have this discussion when someone wealthy is implicated in a crime. On any other given day the SF carceral brigade is out for blood. Just recently a prominent person was talking about bringing back lynching. So when they suddenly start waxing on about the rights of the suspects, we should absolutely press them on their change of heart.
I agree with you too, but don't think holding politicians to their lies or fixating on class warfare is really the most pressing part of the situation. He's calling for lynchings because he knows there's a receptive audience for it.
That's the part you should be most worried about, because a mob so empowered could just as easily turn its gaze to you. Good luck trying to be a nuisance to that prominent person once the mob gets a taste for blood. Before participating in doxxing frenzies or lynch mobs, nobody ever stops and thinks "what if this guy didn't actually do it?"
No expansion of the carceral state required, we'll just deputize an angry mob to play the part of Executioner.
I guess, but I see this all as connected. The person (Michelle Tandler, if you’re wondering) wasn't calling for lynching because she knew she’d get clicks. She was doing it because she thinks police are breaking the social contract: she’s a wealthy white woman, cops exist to make her feel comfortable by violently subjugating poor Black and brown people, and they’re not doing it enough for her.
So yes, vigilante justice is bad, mobs are bad. But crime is also a social construct. We literally decide what is and is not illegal - aka what is and is not “vigilante justice” — and I don’t think it’s necessarily worse to find yourself in the crosshairs of an angry mob than the crosshairs of a cabal of bloodthirsty tech execs aiming the state’s monopoly on violence at you.
> I agree, but we can't only have this discussion when someone wealthy is implicated in a crime.
We don't.
If you're serious about this, you're also responsible for not pushing for doxing of random suspects. You can't argue that there are good witch hunts and bad witch hunts.
