The death of Stephon Clark at the hands of police officers on March 18, 2018 reignited the Black Lives Matter narrative. But this narrative stokes anger using overheated rhetoric that distorts reality and ignores the context in which shootings happen. Imagine you are walking down a dark alley. You see a dark figure approaching you with something in his hand, or a bulge in his pocket. Any number of thoughts could cross your mind. Much of it depends on the darkness of the alleyway, the demeanor of the individual’s walk, and the reputation of the neighborhood. That object could be a cell phone, pipe, or gun, and the bulge in the pocket could be anything from Skittles to him being happy to see you. But that is just the civilian scenario.
For police officers, add the intensity of responding to reported crimes. A split-second hesitation could result in serious injury or death; the person down the alley is refusing lawful commands, gesturing angrily, and screaming profanity at the officer. The totality of the situation, the lack of perfect knowledge, and the seeming hostility of the individual provide the context that informs the officer’s decision to use force. Those decisions could have dire consequences if that spur of the moment decision seems foolish and wrong in the light of day.
For example, the event that started it all had significant contextual factors that varied from the hyper-partisan protesting. Even though Trayvon Martin was reported by witnesses to be beating George Zimmerman MMA-style (after using a racial slur against him), had illicit drugs in his system, was serving a suspension for stealing, and had lockpicking gear in his backpack, the narrative was that an innocent boy carrying Skittles was killed. Black Lives Matter members propagated that colorful insinuation.
The Skittles fallacy shows a disturbing tendency regarding how we judge events. Traditionally, morality in warfare and law enforcement was judged by common-sense reactions based on the particular circumstances. Now the morality of a shooting is based on legalistic parsing that largely ignores context.
Stephon Clark was unarmed and just seen in a headline that made him seem like a victim of inappropriate and overwhelming police force. The independent autopsy revealed he was shot eight times and mostly in the back— though he could have been spun around in the dark, meaning the officers still wouldn’t know.
Family members and activists put smiling pictures of an innocent in front of the camera, all to create a sense of terrible injustice. By some, this case was deemed unjust and even criminal. But a careful analysis shows this is more likely another example of the Skittles fallacy. The police were responding to reports of vandalism in the area, and it was an extremely dark night. The released body-camera footage showed the lead officer screaming “Gun!” and both officers hiding behind a corner as a shadowy figure walked towards them quickly. This all reflects their sincere belief that the defendant was armed and dangerous.
The added context in which the officers made this decision should have provided a counter narrative and heaping amounts of caution in uncritical acceptance of the narrative from family members and activists. The resulting arguments ignored the many factors that make a situation so chaotic and ultimately tragic. They ignore the possible aggressive actions of the victim, the limited knowledge of law enforcement officials, the lack of light, and split-second decisions required in dealing with what could be a gun. The most important part of justice isn’t the rage that attracts cameras and clicks but a reasoned assessment based on the context of the event, and not a contentious narrative that advances an agenda.
