The context before it is literally just him rattling off facts about the case and speculating on outcomes since no criminal investigation was being conducted. It's mostly professional and boring. The other party says something inaudible, he laughs, changes his tone and comments about checks for 11k being issued-- the implication being it's such a low amount because "no, she's a regular person" and "she's 26, she has no value," which is all clearly how he expects the city to respond.
In the city's own response, the main thing they took issue with was his discussing potential resolutions at all-- because when your officers are caught on camera offering cynical takes about how you'll handle a pedestrian death, it's not a good look for you:
> The Accountability Ordinance is clear in seeking to preserve the integrity of OPA investigations: “While any incident of public concern is under OPA, SPD or OIG review, no City employee should comment, either in their official or personal capacity, in a way that suggests that any factual, policy, or legal conclusions have been reached about the incident.”
It's gallows humor (and definitely unprofessional and insensitive) but the conclusions you're coming to based off of one line are seriously fucked. He's a Narcissist? A sadist? Seriously? An incel?
Those are some bold claims to make about a man who is very clearly jaded.
I think you’re right. It reminds me of some of the awful jokes I’ve heard about medical professionals like EMTs making.
Any morbid job seems to lead to morbid humor as one coping mechanism. And it’s not intended to be a personal insult because you’re not a person to them when they encounter you as part of a job routine, you’re a task. Tasks are something people are inclined to joke about. That’s just how brains work and doesn’t make people evil.
Doing it while on camera is monumentally stupid though.
Thank you for this! A voice of reason to go against the big outrage machine being fired up. Your take makes so much more sense. Sarcasm and jaded humour can come across really badly when taken out of context.
To anyone seeing this I'd suggest to watch the actual recording. It's only 2m30s long and linked by the article [0].
I spent a bit of time in an environment around helping people with disabilities and this sounds quite familiar. It had the worst jokes and the most horrible kind of humour. It helps coping with what is essentially a shitty environment and being exposed to how bad things can be for people. It didn't stop anyone from actually helping people and being decent. But yeah, it wouldn't have looked good at all if it was recorded.
> Sarcasm and jaded humour can come across really badly when you taken out of context.
Yep, especially when you leave just enough out of the parts you quote to be able to spin this into either a cops-are-evil, cops-are-misogynist, or cops-are-racist narrative to suit your audience. "No, she's just a normal person" is deliberately omitted from the article, despite it establishing the context for everything reported on.
> I spent a bit of time in an environment around helping people with disabilities and this sounds quite familiar. It had the worst jokes and the most horrible kind of humour.
You get it. Most of us have been there or participated in it ourselves, whether or not we admit it.
The sad part is, he wasn't making Frogger jokes or anything-- he was making a statement about the criteria by which the city would justify undercompensating the victim's family for their loss. He's clearly disillusioned with the institution he works for...same as the rest of us.
Rather than using his inadvertent disclosure to ask some very pointed questions about how the city has historically compensated families for civilian deaths (where did he come up the idea for an $11k payout?), the internet outrage machine is spun up to crucify the guy who made a private gaffe about it.
That’s the problem with making jokes like that in such a position. It makes you seem like a piece of trash, even if you aren’t.
But, they can assume he is all that as much as you can assume he was joking and isn’t a bad person. You can’t prove your side, it’s merely an interpretation given your own biases. Just like people who call him narcissistic or a sadist are basing that on theirs.
It's called gallows humor because you're the one standing on the gallows. When you're the strongarm of the state and laugh about how the city you serve is going to just cut a check in response to one of your coworkers killing some random innocent you're not engaging in gallows humor—you're part of the execution.
There are plenty of people who select their political affiliation to match their lack of respect for their fellow human being. There are also plenty of people who are led to such lack of respect via their political affiliation.
There are narcissistic and sadistic people everywhere, but to pretend the prevalence is evenly distributed, or that the expressions of their narcissism or sadism are identical, is to ignore the actual state of the world in favor of philosophy and thought experiment.
No, bad faith commenters are here trying to make it political. Like you, right now. Reframing socual issues as political just hurts us all and precludes critical thinking around issues.
Except a number of people have very specifically—and in bad faith—reframed social issues as political issues already, and we need to recognize that as a real aspect of the world we live in and not just a philosophical issue.
For example, there are a lot of people who become cops because they hold reactionary views on social issues. And there are a lot of people who hold reactionary views on social issues because of their political affiliation, rather than the other way around. It’s not good, but it is an aspect of the world we live in that should not be ignored, particularly because some people don’t have the privilege to ignore it.
