I would like to offer something to this “trolling” concept Caleb and Violet because I find that it seems driven by an insensitivity that contributes to this disturbing mindset. A mindset that can be attributed to a racial fetishism and the pursuit of that “rush” or stimuli it produces as schadenfreude.

I wonder if they themselves are able to explain this joy and pleasure beyond their faulty just world notions and describe that intense feeling they get out of racial violence and injustice, even though they refuse to acknowledge this. Especially in light of being ignorant of the blatant violations of police conduct and protocol during the stop as reported.

“The officer got too close to the passenger’s window. If I thought he was a robbery suspect, I would have had my hand on my gun. The tactics were a little laissez-faire if you thought you were dealing with an armed robbery suspect.” — Garry F. McCarthy, a former Chicago police superintendent

“If Officer Yanez had a reasonable belief that Mr. Castile was a suspect in an armed robbery, he should have employed a high-risk car stop, and to do otherwise would be inconsistent with generally accepted police practices.” — Jeffrey J. Noble, a former California police officer who testified on behalf of the prosecution in Minnesota, in a report on Mr. Castile’s death

But what is particularly exhilarating about this viral scene of a racially white (someone who subscribes to whiteness and is superficial in appearance to be white due to pigmentation) police officer firing several shots into the body of a black man in a vehicle, with child in the back and woman in the front? A man who showed no agreeable signs of threatening aggression at any time during the stop. Is it the callous insult that it ultimately delivers to black people in general that makes this enjoyable? Because clearly the inappropriate discretion and blatant disregard for the professionalism of police here by this officer was overlooked.

Officer Yanez tells Mr. Castile his brake light is out, and Mr. Castile hands over his insurance card. During the brief conversation, Mr. Castile calmly tells Officer Yanez, “Sir, I have to tell you I do have a firearm on me.”

“You go into the head of the driver, and he’s apparently trying to be honest and straightforward. He was probably thinking, ‘I’ll be a good guy and show the officer my carry card, and this will all be over.’ What was happening in the officer’s mind was different. Maybe the officer thought he was going for the gun.” — Geoffrey P. Alpert, professor at the University of South Carolina who studies high-risk police activity and police violence

“The victim did everything right, everything he was supposed to do. The victim was very respectful, very polite, letting the officer know what he was doing. None of that made a difference.” — Paul Butler, law professor at Georgetown University and former federal prosecutor

Officer Yanez yells at Mr. Castile not to reach for his gun. Mr. Castile tries to assure him that he is not. Officer Yanez fires seven shots; later, he will say he thought Mr. Castile was reaching for his gun. Mr. Castile’s girlfriend has said he was trying to pull out his identification, as the officer had requested.

It appears that the mere mention of guns or the power of just having one in your hand leads to irrationality. Then there is this “reasonable doubt” parlance to oppose what is quite evident in our judicial system. Clearly we have a population that is grossly under-educated or can be easily miseducated by our institutions that in turn does frequently take advantage of.

“Could there be something that would lead reasonable jurors to have reasonable doubt? We can’t see what happened inside the vehicle. It was entirely possible that that was the basis for the acquittal. The jurors might have said, ‘He had a gun, and he might have been reaching for it.’” — Mr. Klinger, professor and former police officer

“I believe that he panicked, that he was totally out of control and that because of that, Philando lost his life. … If he had concerns about the weapon, say then: ‘Show me both your hands. Put both of your hands on the steering wheel.’” — Glenda Hatchett, lawyer for the Castile family

Reasonable doubt is simply an argument for ignorance in this and many instances. It is the same concept that many continue to place in our president’s competence as a plausible leader without regard to actual outcome. However, the emotionality of it all negates all of this in an instant.

“Afterwards, he’s in a very emotionally wrought place. He’s screaming into his mike. There’s no composure. He did not present a very professional demeanor.” — Mr. Klinger, professor and former police officer

“I thought it was really positive that the other officer removed the child from the back seat. He’s trying to assess what the heck just happened. I thought that was the best thing he could do at that point.” — Mr. McCarthy, former police superintendent

“Part of what may have made a difference to the jury was the officer’s very emotional reaction after the shooting. He’s somebody who realizes that he’s made a grievous mistake. It’s certainly an argument for a manslaughter conviction rather than a murder conviction. People who do harm in the heat of the moment still deserve punishment.” — Mr. Butler, former prosecutor

But some how none of this matters. Just another abject failure for our society to learn nothing from. Something I have written about previously.

So what is it then? What do we need to do to disabuse ourselves from the epicaricacy of it all? What is evident though is the need for mass therapy and withdrawal from racial discord to mitigate the addictive qualities of trolling racial insensitivities in these instances.

Written by

It appears the more that I write the better I perceive.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store