RUSH TO JUDGMENT

You are walking down "your" street in "your" suburban neighborhood.

You stop after noticing a stamped envelope lying on the sidewalk in front of you. A collection mail box is 15 feet down the street.

You pick up the envelope and observe it is sealed and has the return address of a next door neighbor.

What do you do?

This is only one of many questions I occasionally asked of folks who were in their initial interview for a claim representative position with my former employer.

I need to stress that their answer was not the sole determinant nor primary factor in deciding whether the applicant got the job. It may not have even influenced our final conclusion as we looked at many factors.

I honestly cannot recall any individual who was turned down based upon their answer.

Then, "why ask the question?" you may have wondered.

The purpose of this type of question was to attempt to determine whether or not the individual being interviewed "might" be inclined to "rush to judgment" - without considering other alternative actions.

Most frequently, the applicant replied that their decision would be to put the envelope in the mailbox; a response that probably many of us would have given.

It's also possible that some of the interviewees may have responded as they did based upon their conclusion that in the hiring process we were just looking for Good Samaritans. Who knows?

Frequently, I would add more information to the scenario to see if the interviewee might wish to reconsider their original answer.

My favorite addendum was that the neighbor had a check in the envelope to pay an important bill. Before placing it in the mail box he realized he had insufficient funds in his checking account.

Thus, he did not mail the check. However, in rushing back home to make other arrangements, he inadvertently dropped the envelope on the sidewalk.

The quality of the scenario and lack of a scientific basis could be argued forever if it were the sole determinant of whether or not the person being interviewed eventually got the job.

Again, it wasn't.

My conclusion after conducting many interviews was that we needed to find people who were capable of "thinking on their feet" (or in their chair) - as opposed to merely regurgitating what they had read in a book.

If eventually selected for the job, a failure to thoroughly investigate an accident, and explore each of the many possible alternatives could result in a conclusion that was harmful to the participants - whether they be our insured or the claimant driver.

Regardless of what you hear in the television attorney ads with which we are all constantly bombarded, we, as representatives of the insurance company, truly wanted to know who was at fault and act responsibly following that determination.

But, that's for another blog.

The actions taken or threatened, and conclusions arrived at by many, following the matter of the neighborhood watch captain and the black teenager in Sanford, Florida are not only irresponsible.

They are reprehensible.

If people have decided to hold rallys, marches, etc; let it be to
draw attention to previous examples of injustice against members of the black community but not a rush to judgment in the individual situation.

While what is known at this juncture most assuredly has reminded many people of similar horrible scenarios - and was the source of their anger - I believe we, as rational human beings, simply do not have enough information to make that determination here.

More information is being discovered each day.

Until "all" the facts in the Sanford matter can reasonaby be examined and weighed by independent fact finders, no fair and equitable conclusion can be reached.

What is also needed is a thorough examination of Florida's "stand your ground" law by qualified individuals and then applied to this case and possibly others that have preceded it.

One important question remains: "Was the law and it's application accurately determined by the initial investigative authorities?"

To fail to wait for the results of these investigations before threatening or pursuing knee jerk responses based upon what may well be inaccurate conclusions could promote even more tragic results down the road.

Just as with the interview scenario - a rush to judgment need not be harmful. There are countless stories when a quick decision by an individual may be responsible for saving a life.

There are also too many examples in our past when a rush to judgment has had the opposite result.

What happened to that 17 year old black youth may have been one of those times - but, we simply do not have enough information to accurately make that judgment.