Didn’t protect or serve: Tyre Nichols’s killing

Hey, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. You know, one of the perks about having four kids that you know about is actually getting a direct line to the big man up north. And this year he wants you to know the best gift that you can give someone is the gift of Mint Mobile's unlimited wireless for $15 a month. Now, you don't even need to wrap it. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment.

Of $45 for a three month plan equivalent to $15 per month.

Required new customer offer for first three months only. Speed slow after 35 gigabytes if network's.

Busy, taxes and fees extra.

See mintmobile.com.

Hello and welcome to the Intelligence from the Economist. In New York, I'm John Fastman.

And in London, I'm Jason Palmer. Every weekday we provide a fresh perspective on the events shaping your world.

When the Taliban seized power in 2021. Mersal Nabizada, unlike many other former parliamentarians, did not flee. But she was murdered in Kabul earlier this month, highlighting just how bad things have got for women in Afghanistan.

And everyone knows about Pavlov's dog. He starts salivating when he hears a bell because he's learned that food follows the ringing. Turns out that understanding isn't quite right. Why, with some mice buzzers and a bit of sugar, we'll explain. But first, It's been almost three weeks since Tyre Nichols, a 29 year old black man, died in Memphis, Tennessee. It had been three days since his brutal encounter with five Memphis police officers. America had waited for days as police prepared to release damning video footage of a traffic stop that turned into an ultimately fatal beating.

Get the out of here. Get the out the car. Damn. I can't do anything. Hey, I didn't turn your ass around.

All right, all right, all right, all right.

The death of a black American at the hands of police officers is a troublingly familiar story. But several details set this case apart. The police officers were all themselves black. They were swiftly fired and charged with murder. And the riots and large scale protests that have come in the aftermath of past police killings didn't really materialize. What's more familiar is the soul searching about policing in America. On Friday, the Nichols family's lawyer, Ben Crump, known to many as Black America's Attorney general, sat alongside Mr. Nichols parents on a phone call with President Joe Biden, where he renewed a case for some stalled federal reforms.

This gives you another opportunity to call for them to come back and pass the George Floyd justice and Policing Act. So we can try to prevent the next Tyre Nichols from happening.

It's far from certain that passing the Floyd act would have prevented Mr. Nichols death. So as America and the world view a disturbing video of yet another killing unfolding, the soul searching must continue.

I haven't been able to watch the footage of Ty Nicholson's murder.

John Brito is our United States editor and host of Checks and Balance, our sister show on American politics.

I've found when I was covering the death of Eric Garner, who was killed by police officers in New York in 2014, I just couldn't sleep after watching the footage of that. And so when these killings happen, as unfortunately they do fairly frequently in America, I no longer watch them. I have read lots of descriptions and I've talked to our correspondent who's in Memphis at the moment, Daniel Knowles. I was talking to him about the footage yesterday and he describes a kind of madness that takes over these police officers. They seem furious that they've had to get out of their car and run after Tyre Nichols. And they seem furious that he's not complying with their demands. There's a sort of rage that they have that he's not doing exactly what they tell him to. And despite the fact that they wearing their body cameras and must have known on some level that what they're doing is being recorded, they beat him savagely and mercilessly. And it's just, it's horrendous.

And what have you made of the response to this murder by the police department itself in Memphis?

Well, the city seems to have acted, you know, appropriately and swiftly. The five officers involved in this killing have all been sacked and charged with murder. Previously, what we've tended to see in other cases like George Floyd is that the police department and the city takes a wait and see approach. That's not the case here. I think the feeling was rightly that the footage showed on the bodycaps was so clear and so awful that unless some immediate action was taken, there was a risk of perhaps some violent process or some riots in Memphis. The other thing that the police department has done is disband this Scorpion unit, which was a 50 person team, that the officers who killed Tyre Nichols were members of the. There's a sort of awful circularity to this because in 2020 when George Floyd was killed in Minneapolis, there were a lot of protests around the country following that for various reasons that are a bit contentious. There was a crime spike in America, including in Memphis, particularly increase in violent crime and in murder or homicide. And so in Response to that. The Memphis Police Department, like quite a lot of other police departments around the country, set up one of these Scorpion units, special unit of police, to go around the city and police quite aggressively, be very present and sort of assert their authority. And it's this Scorpion Unit, its members, which. Which killed Tyre Nichols for no apparent reason and has now been disbanded. So it does feel a bit like American cities are trapped in this awful loop.

You say that the footage of Tyre Nichols killing was so clear cut that it prompted a different kind of response. But it doesn't seem any more clear cut to me than what we saw, for example, in the case of George Floyd.

Well, you might be right, Jason. It may be the case that officials realize the importance of acting very swiftly and being very clear. We have seen some protests in American cities, I think rightly so, after this killing. They've been relatively muted and they've been, I think, almost entirely peaceful, which is obviously good news. The other thing that I think we have to say here is that it makes a difference to America's racial politics that all of the officers involved in the killing were black, as was the victim, Tyree Nichols. I think it's too simple to say that because that was the case. There's no racial angle here. I mean, I question whether a white suspect would have been beaten to death by five black officers in Memphis, but of course we'll never know whether that's the case or not. But the fact that, as I say, the officers and the victim were all black means that this killing doesn't have the crackle of racial violence and the overtones of racist violence in America's past that some of the other really high profile killings of African Americans have had.

So putting the race angle aside, then, it does seem to suggest a sort of a culture of impunity. These guys thought they could do that and get away with that and wear body cameras and that. That is just within their gift.

Yes, you are right on one level, but on another, I don't understand how they could not have realized a, you know, even if they wanted to be as violent and to break the law in the way that they had, that they were filming themselves at the time, and that they would have to be held accountable in some sense for their actions. So it's really inexplicable, Jason. I mean, they seem to have made no effort to hide what they were doing. They seemed to think that in some twisted way they were upholding the law. And as I said, they seem to have been driven to a kind of incomprehensible fury by relatively minor non compliance.

And what do you think this killing does to the conversation around police reform? There was the George Floyd justice and Policing act that came after his death. That's been stalled in Congress. Do you think this tragedy will push that ahead in some way?

I don't think that bill will get through Congress as a result of this, Jason. There aren't majorities for it either in the House of Representatives or in the Senate now. But what I would say is even if these sorts of federal police reforms were passed, it's not clear to me that they would have made a difference in this particular case. I say that because a couple of the things that tend to be in the federal reforms are A, funding for body cameras which these officers were wearing, and B, getting rid of qualified immunity, which is a legal defense that allows police officers often to avoid prosecution when they use lethal force. And in this case, all five officers have been charged with murder. So it's not clear to me that there is a federal reform here that would fix this. I think this is something for cities and police departments to tackle.

Still, looking forward, silver lining here. Do you think that the response of the city of Memphis and the ability apparently to quell the violence, one might have expected that we might see more of that, that swift, decisive action is the answer and that when these tragedies do happen, that doesn't have to spill into something wider?

Yes, I think the action that the city's taken will help. I mean, surely police officers in Memphis and in other cities around America will have seen the response and understood that this kind of force is unacceptable. I would also say, just for context, that there was a spike in police killings last year. But that comes in the context of a fairly long term decline in the numbers of Americans being killed by police officers. It still looks high compared with other countries, but I think it's possible to look at cases like Tyre Nicholson and assume that there's more of this stuff happening than used to be the case. And that's partly because police officers have body cams now and the footage gets released and the footage itself becomes a sort of media event because it's so appalling. It looks like if you take a sort of sober look at the numbers, that there are fewer of these killings now than there were 10, 20 years ago. That doesn't make this one any less appalling, but it's important context, I think.

John, thanks very much for joining us.

Thanks, Jason.

When the Taliban took back control of Afghanistan, they promised Things would be different this time, a spokesperson said. God willing and in accordance with Sharia law, we will allow women to work. They're an important element of society and we respect them. But from the beginning, activists warned that those words were empty.

As an Afghan woman, I wouldn't trust them because they don't have a very.

Good track record of keeping up their promises or something.

And sure enough, each month that's passed since August 2021 seems to have brought with it news of additional women's rights being stripped away.

The Taliban led government suddenly ordered most secondary schools for girls to close.

Students packed up their bags and headed home. Afghan women must now wear a full veil when leaving their homes. The Taliban government of Afghanistan has ordered.

An indefinite ban on university education for women.

Another restriction on women in Afghanistan. This time they're being told to stay away from work. That's crucial to getting humanitarian aid to millions of people.

But this month, a former parliamentarian, Mercel Nabizada, was killed.

We don't know that much about Marcel. She was one of the few female lawmakers in the country. She also was one of the few lawmakers who actually stayed in Afghanistan after the Taliban took over in 2021.

Avantika Chilkoti is a foreign correspondent for the Economist.

There's a really nice quote from her that was circulating online where she said Afghanistan wasn't like a restaurant that you can leave if you don't like the service. For her, it was really home. And on January 15, she was actually shot dead in her own home along with her bodyguard in Kabul.

Do we know anything about who might have killed her?

As yet, we don't know who's killed her. We don't know where the investigation is at, though the Kabul police say there will be one. There has been a lot of attention on this case overseas, but it's not clear there's a lot of attention going to this internally.

Is there any sense of hope that the people who did this might be brought to justice?

No, absolutely not. And actually this murder is just sort of the tip of the iceberg. There's a complete lack of enforcement in any rules that protect women. Violence against women seems to be totally acceptable under the Taliban. One expert I spoke to, she put it as, you know, the gloves have come off. Anyone can do anything to a woman in the country.

Now can we explore the broader ramifications of that statement? I mean, it was just in December when the Taliban banned women from attending universities and working for NGOs. What has the fallout been from those restrictions?

There's been a series of restrictions on women in the country since the Taliban took over, not letting them into secondary schools, to rules about going out without a male escort. But really, of all the absurd decisions the Taliban has taken, the decision to stop women working at NGOs is by far the most idiotic. For one, it's terrible for the country, it's terrible for development. This is a country that is one of the biggest recipients of aid around the world. The UN reckons that the share of households for whom humanitarian assistance is the main source of income has actually gone up sixfold since 2021. And without female aid workers, nonprofit groups who are providing this assistance simply can't do their work. Secondly, like all of the other chauvinist rules the Taliban has introduced, it's really just shown to the rest of the world how fractured the leadership within the Taliban is. Even since this was announced in December, I've spoken to a number of international NGOs who've said, actually they've had assurances from local Taliban officials who say it's fine, they can continue their work with women. They won't be attacked, the rules won't be enforced. It doesn't exactly make it sound like this is a proper government in which is coordinated across the country.

So that's NGOs. What about the restriction on women in universities? What has the response been to that?

There's been outrage from female students. You know, there was these really moving scenes of them outside the universities after the ban was announced. They were sort of holding each other, crying, a real sense of anguish. You've got to understand how brave you have to be to demonstrate in Kabul right now. These demonstrations are quickly shut down, and human rights organizations have, you know, far too many reports from demonstrators about the brutality they faced from the Taliban, sort of torture, threats, abuse for demonstrating against rules just like this. In one really sort of memorable show of defiance, there was a male professor from Kabul University who went on television and tore up his diploma. He said, you know, if my sister and my mother can't study, then I don't accept this education.

How did all of this happen? The Taliban promised after America left to rule by moderation and to keep a place for women at the table. Were they just lying?

In August 2021, when the last American forces left Kabul, there was some vague hope that Taliban 2.0 would be different. The sort of brutes who ran the country from 96 to 2001. You have to remember, at that time, women were basically confined to the home. They there would be public beatings and stoning of anyone who committed a petty crime, stuff like adultery as well. And people really thought maybe over the last 20 years, this country has changed so much. There's a whole generation of women with an education. They won't be able to do this again. And the moderates who represent the Taliban at talks in places like Doha, they sort of seem to promise that things would be different. But in recent months, it really turns out that the extremist mullahs in Kandahar, in the heartlands of the Taliban, they're the ones giving the orders sometimes, you know, without even checking in with the ministries in Kabul.

What sorts of tools does the rest of the world does the international community have to respond or push back here?

I don't know what it's worth, but we had lots of condemnation, you know, from the Americans.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms the Taliban's indefensible decision to ban women from universities, to keep secondary schools close to girls, and to continue to impose other restrictions on the ability of women and girls in Afghanistan to exercise their human rights and their fundamental freedoms.

From the UN Secretary General.

Across Afghanistan, women and girls are missing from offices and classrooms. A generation of girls is seeing its hopes and dreams shattered. Women scientists, lawyers, and teachers are locked out, wasting skills and talents that will.

Benefit the entire country and indeed the world.

But these don't really make much impact. You know, even Qatar, which has been a big support for the Taliban, which has hosted peace talks, even they've expressed concern about women being banned from the workplaces. They've been encouraging the Taliban to revisit the decision. But as long as aid money keeps coming in, as long as this regime knows they're not going to be acknowledged formally by the outside world, they're not going to get direct funding from the outside world. They're going to stick to their extremist views, their extremist plans for the country.

So ultimately, where does that leave us? And where does that leave women in Afghanistan?

So the murder this month of parliamentarian really grabbed headlines, you know, that got people talking about Afghanistan again. But in general, with a war in Ukraine, with the prospect of global recession, this country has not really been in the limelight since the 2021 withdrawal. You know, you might remember these images that we were all captivated by, you know, people clutching onto the wheels of departing aircraft at Kabul airport because they were so desperate to flee the Taliban. At that time, we were all totally mesmerized, totally gripped by the story of Afghanistan and As it turns out, these people, they were right to be worried. Besides all of these harsh new restrictions, most of the population is living in poverty. Some 20 million people are at risk of severe hunger. And we really can't afford to forget this country, especially in the middle of a very, very unusually cold winter where even more lives are at stake.

All right, Avantika, thanks very much for joining us today.

Thank you for having me, John.

John, I've got some sounds for you to listen to. Here we go.

All right, Abby Berdix, you are a resident science writer. I can always count on you to bring me something interesting. But tell me what I'm listening for.

So when I play these sounds, something should come to mind, and I want you to tell me how you feel.

I feel beset on all sides and anxious, like I need to check my phone. I feel assaulted.

Me, too. My heart rate definitely went up a few beats.

Yeah.

How about this one?

That second one? I feel good because it sounds like there's an episode of the Wire about to start, which is, of course, the best TV show ever made. And the first one sounds familiar. Also TV related. No particular feelings.

Awesome. Definitely more relaxing than the other notifications.

Yes.

Now let's try this one.

For that one, I feel hungry because I'm listening to bacon.

I was definitely hearing and smelling onions, garlic, olive oil. I'm kind of hungry right now. But what's amazing about all of these different sounds and the associated reactions that you had to them is that these sounds can trigger emotions. What you're doing is you're associating this sound with a later action, a later reward. This is very similar to Pavlov's famous experiment with dogs way back in 1897. So this is the famous experiment where Pavlov was able to condition dogs with a bell. It actually wasn't a bell because Pavlov said bells were notoriously inaccurate and not very scientific. So he used a metronome. He would play a bell or the metronome, and then he would put down food for the dogs. And at some point, the dogs would learn to associate the sound with the food, and they would start salivating when the sound was played, even if no food was placed down at all. This associative learning, where we're associating a cause with an effect, is central to how animals, how we learn and how we deal with the world. And since then, scientists have been very curious to understand how it works. About 50 years ago, they thought they understood how it worked. And recent research has suggested that they Might be wrong.

All right, let's start 50 years ago, how did they think it worked?

They basically thought that animals brains were prediction making machines. So every time a cue comes, an animal is predicting what's going to happen next. So when a dog encounters a bell or a human hears sizzling of a skillet, you're predicting when the food might come later, and then it waits to see what arrives. With this model, the animal is actually computing the difference between what they predicted and what actually happened, and then using the difference between the prediction and the results to fix their computations in order to make better predictions in the future. This idea is very similar to reinforcement learning and the types of error based learning that happen with deep neural networks in the artificial intelligence world. And to kind of add to that even more, there was an experiment published a couple of decades ago that noted that dopamine, a really important neurotransmitter in the brain that is used with rewards and learning, the fluctuations in levels of dopamine, looked a lot like these kinds of prediction error signals.

So what you're saying, Abby, is that that understanding is now looking a bit shakier, right?

Yes. So there is a new model that is adding to the doubt behind the old prediction dogma. The old model looked forward, always making predictions and then associating cause with effect. There's a new model suggested by scientists at UC San Francisco, a paper about which was just published in Science, and this new model, rather than looking forward, looks backward. So rather than going from the cues and making predictions to rewards, this model looks at the rewards whenever reward is important. And then it looks backwards and it tries to associate the effect with the cause. And the role of dopamine in this model is a little different. Dopamine's job is to say when a reward or when a cue or when an event is meaningful enough for you to look around for a possible cause.

And so in this model, the dog essentially looks back and reflects and its brain tags the the sound. With dopamine as a cause of the food reward, yes.

All of a sudden, the bell becomes this meaningful event. So dopamine is flagging the importance of these events. It's difficult because with these types of associations at the beginning, just like in terms of what's happening with the dopamine, there's high levels of dopamine when the animal gets the food because it intrinsically likes food. As the animal learns to associate the bell with the food, the dopamine in the brain starts shifting from the food to the bell. So that towards the end, once it's learned the association, most of the dopamine is being released with the bell rather than with the food. It's saying now the bell is really, really important.

That's super interesting. How on earth did they figure this out?

The new paper used 11 different experiments that were able to qualitatively disentangle the two models. And they did experiments on mice where they were trying to train them to associate the sound of a buzzer with droplets of sugar which they would lap up with their little tongues. And during these experiments, all of the mice had a little hole drilled into their brain through which this kind of optical fiber cable was attached. And they were able to measure in real time the amount of dopamine being released. So they were training them to associate the buzzers and the sugar. And for all 11 experiments, the data fit the new retrospective causal looking backwards model over the old predictive one.

So, Abby, to ask a basic and crass question. Why does all of this matter?

This matters a lot to the neuroscientists who spend their careers thinking about this. It still hasn't quite settled. I would say in the world of neuroscience, there are a bunch of people who are still confused, still wrapping their heads around the model, but this is certainly causing quite a stir. I think this has even more important ramifications outside of the field of neuroscience directly. For one, artificial intelligence, and in particular, reinforcement learning, has used the old predictive model as a way of bolstering its street cred by saying, hey, look, this AI algorithm that we've been using actually also happens in the brain. It has this kind of biological plausibility. If this new model is actually more accurate to describe how things work, that kind of takes that asset away from that form of AI. More optimistically, researchers now can take this new model and see if there might be other AI algorithms that could be used that might actually do better and might be more biologically plausible. Researchers are definitely already exploring it.

All right, Abby, interesting as always. Thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you, John.

That's all for this episode of the Intelligence. Let us know what you think of the show. You can get in touch@podcastseconomist.com and you.

Can subscribe to the economist@economist.com intelligenceoffer the link is in the show Notes. We'll see you back here tomorrow.