Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It’s kind like human rights - the majority of people who are at risk of having them infringed are unpleasant or unsympathetic characters. I’d argue a cliché “upstanding law-abiding citizen” type doesn’t generally have that much to fear from a police interaction. They are generally being dealt with on a presumption of good faith, and have at least some access to leverage and ability to push back against unfair tr…
> It’s kind like human rights - the majority of people who are at risk of having them infringed are unpleasant or unsympathetic characters. I think some people have a view of "human rights" that fixates on and elevates "unpleasant or unsympathetic characters" but I don't think it's intrinsic to the concept of human rights. > I’d argue a cliché “upstanding law-abiding citizen” type doesn’t generally have that much to…
Nobody said it was. But it is almost definitionally true that the people most at risk of having their individual or human rights infringed are those people who are subject to the most forceful remedies of the state. And these are, by and large, not people for whom it is easy to have sympathy.
Illuminating of what exactly that would make their view more "important" (as stated above) than the views of law abiding citizens?
It is easy to treat a good and compliant person well; observing someone do this tells us little. It is harder to treat someone “bad” well, so seeing this happen can give us greater confidence that people in positions of power are treating others equally, free from prejudice. It’s tells us more, and thus is more important.
I think if you break it down more granularly, you'll see that what police interactions vary more within, for example, ethnic groups, than between ethnic groups, based on characteristics such as past criminal history, etc.
You might; I can’t say. It doesn’t ameliorate unequal treatment on the basis of other characteristics, regardless.