Don't Believe the Evidence of Your Eyes
On shootings and the epistemological crisis
This past weekend there was another tragic shooting in Minnesota and another debate online over what people saw with their eyes based on various videos, with the Department of Homeland Security immediately posting evidence that the victim, Alex Pretti, had a gun and ammo, Secretary Kristi Noem speculating that he wanted to do “maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement” and Stephen Miller claiming that he was an “assassin.” Meanwhile, critics of the administration claimed that this was cold-blooded murder by the government and even traditional supporters of the administration, like the NRA, criticized these responses and urged patience for a full investigation. Over time we will learn the truth, that is if we can trust the Trump administration to fairly judge the actions of federal immigration officers.
Based on the videos and analyses I’ve seen, the evidence looks damning. It looks like Pretti did not have a gun in hand and was disarmed before he was shot. But all that practically means is that final judgement should be reserved for a proper investigation and the courts of law. But it does mean that we need a proper investigation and healthy courts of law. The problem is that the administration has not waited for a proper investigation or even called for one. They have immediately jumped to a narrative that fits their culture war biases, acquitting the officers and condemning the victim.1 It’s unhealthy and harmful when citizens jump to conclusions about an incident before all the facts are in just to push a narrative. It’s democracy undermining when administrations stoop to it, as this one has this past weekend. Because as a result, citizens have reason to doubt the “official narrative” given by the State just as they have to doubt the narrative given by the Media or fellow citizens. Rather than being the calm, patient, representatives of judicial processes, the State is just as committed to the culture war narrative as everyone else.
We live in a tension in an age of citizen videos and images. On the one hand, they are needed to protect us from propaganda by the State and the Media. On the other hand, they can give us the false impression that we are getting direct access to reality. Images don’t tell the whole story. They always come with a frame and interpretation. And the way we interpret them often comes through the Media or the State. We aren’t getting direct access to reality when we watch smartphone video of someone being shot. We’re seeing one frame of a story which is always already framed, framed by time (when it begins and ends), by boundaries (what is out of the frame?), and by agendas (our own and others). The age of smartphone videos has not saved us from the burden of interpretation and discernment. We still must rely on a healthy judicial system to adjudicate our tragedies. And if our government is pushing out conspiracy theories (“assassin”?) that directly defy what we can see with our eyes, we must demand just investigations. Moreover, we must demand our governing authorities speak with prudence and temperance about investigations rather than acting like the worst Very Online activists who rush to push their agendas every time an event happens.
