The police did not try to stop the lynching

The argument

All accounts of this shocking crime indicate that the police present did almost nothing to stop it. Neither the guards (who first stopped the three traveling men) nor the small police presence that later arrived properly intervened or did anything to stop the angry mob from killing the three men. The lynching happened in view of the police, who claimed they believed that the victims were robbers. Video of the incident shows that the police witnessed the incident but did not step in to try and stop the men being killed. This demonstrates that rather than doing their jobs, the police were complicit in the incident.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The police did try to stop the incident. A statement released by police said that “one of our patrolling vehicles later spotted the severely injured trio lying on the road and stopped to investigate. However, our team was also attacked by the mob and the vehicle pelted with stones. Our personnel had to flee and were unable to rescue to the victims”.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The counter-argument on record contests the factual claim. The police statement says a patrol vehicle came upon the injured men and stopped to investigate, that the officers were themselves attacked and the vehicle stoned, and that they were forced to withdraw without being able to reach the victims — which, if accurate, describes an attempted intervention that failed rather than an absence of one. [Rejecting P2] Video of officers present during part of an incident does not establish what they did before or after it was filmed, and a small number of officers facing a large crowd may be physically unable to intervene without being overwhelmed. Failure to act under those conditions is a question of capacity, and possibly of a failure to call for reinforcement, rather than of intent. [Rejecting C] The conclusion also asserts more than the premises support. Complicity implies participation or deliberate facilitation, whereas the evidence assembled here would at most establish inaction — which the rival positions read as inadequate numbers, poor command and a failure of nerve. Distinguishing the two is precisely what the inquiries into the incident were required to determine, and the argument treats the question as settled by the appearance.