There are of course situations where a market failure is more likely. If our KKK member has leased the only cafeteria at a workplace, or is the only decent ISP in an area, they might deserve more regulation. (Things get messier if there is a prevailing sentiment of customers distorting the market, like "places willing to serve Blacks are low-class".
Okay, now backport this to your original idea, which is that it's fine to blacklist ICE employees, and to reveal their identities so they are easier to blacklist. What if this makes it hard for the ICE employee to participate in large swaths of society, just like it does in the "KKK members lease everything" scenario or the "customer sentiment" scenario? How exactly is "places willing to serve blacks are low-class" different from "places willing to serve ICE employees are fascist collaborators"?
(Except that you can probably tell who is black without having to reveal their identity first.)
The point of the anecdote is not "never walk past a homeless person" but "never walk past a homeless person just because you screen out their existence as a neutral fact of the universe".
That means that if you never walk past a homeless person anyway, you're exempt from the requirement. All you need is a dual-purpose homeless avoidance so that you can truthfully say you have a reason to do it aside from just avoiding the homeless.
There should not be greater moral requirements on people who walk instead of drive and as such inherently pass more homeless. Or to put it another way, it's a double whammy: the poorer someone is, the more they have to walk and use busses and live where there are homeless around, so the more they have to help the homeless. Being rich doesn't just mean you have more money, it means you have fewer moral obligations.
Jiro
1d ago
If someone wanted to refuse to serve blacks at their lunch counter, would it be okay with you as long as this was not legally required?
Jiro
1d ago
The question "how many candles do I have to buy before I can stop" is not an issue because the answer is zero. Is the answer to "how much do I have to give to the poor and unfortunate to be considered not selfishly evil" also zero?
Jiro
2d ago
But any passing knowledge of America's founders, it's elder statesman, our civic religion more broadly and the virtues embodied therein puts lie to the notion Donald Trump could possible be some avatar of it.
I don't see an argument in this post.
Jiro
2d ago
one third our intentional homicide rate?
How does it compare to the US's homicide rate when broken down by race?
Jiro
2d ago
If they actually grab a knife out of the block and lunge at the officer, then even under strict standards the officer would have good reason to shoot. So the police could shoot.
If the police said "I thought I saw him go for the knife" and shot him while he might have been reaching for the knife or might have been doing nothing at all, I'd be much less inclined to trust the police. But even then, the comparison doesn't work well because there's little reason for the suspect to reach for the knife except to attack the officer, so going for the knife is probably an attack, while in the car the suspect has a pretty plausible reason to drive other than to attack ther officer.
(If he has a knife handcuffed to him, such that any movement looks like he's reaching for the knife, he does of course have a plausible reason to move other than to attack.)
Jiro
2d ago
I think the standards for the officer using the vehicle accelerating into him as a defense to shooting him should be stricter than normal. There is a need for officers to be permitted to make split second decisions, but there's also a need to not let that get out of hand, and officers are known to game confrontations a lot like "honestly I smelled marijuana" or "you looked like you were speeding" or making it unclear whether you are free to go.
It's possible that in this particular case the threat was clear enough that even under stricter standards he had reason to shoot (despite the initial reporting).
Is your claim that anytime a LEO crosses in front of or behind a vehicle with a suspect in the driver's seat they are throwing away any legitimate interest in not being ran-over? That if the suspect decides to flee, it may be unfortunate that they had to drive over an officer to do so, but that that's fundamentally the officer's fault and not a charge the suspect should face?
Well, compare that to the situation where the police handcuffed a knife to the suspect. I think that in that case they did throw away a lot of legitimate interest in not being knifed by the suspect, and they shouldn't claim "he was a threat because he had a knife". If they are actually knifed by the suspect, you can charge the suspect, but the standard for self-defense against being attacked by the suspect should be stricter than it usually is--strict enough that police only handcuff knives to suspects when it's actually necessary, not when the main effect is giving a reason to shoot the suspect.
Of course, walking in front of a car is necessary a lot more often than handcuffing a knife to a suspect. So the standard shouldn't be as bad as it is then. Still, it should be stricter than what it would be if the officer had not walked in front of the car.
In this specific case: While the general principle is very clear and backed by extensive caselaw, the facts of this particular incident are even more damning.
If in this specific case the car did come at him in a stronger sense than just "it looked dangerous and he's allowed to shoot if it looks dangerous", then yes, in this case I will concede. But not in the general case.
Jiro
2d ago
He wasn't putting himself as a roadblock.
If you are saying that he did it but not intentionally, I'd reply that creating an excuse for lethal force unintentionally is jabout as bad as doing it intentionally, and should be discouraged for similar reasons.
If you are saying that he didn't do it at all, has what is known about the incident really changed that much?
Jiro
2d ago
Unless the Shia clerics can drink blood and summon rain, you can't kill your way out of having no water.
North Korea has survived famines without a regime change, and they can't drink blood and summon rain.
The issue is that the police can escalate from one level of force (the level permitted on a fleeing person) to a greater level of force (lethal force, permitted on a threat) by creating a situation where the first looks like the second. The first level of force is not zero, so this doesn't require that the police avoid all physical confrontation. It does mean that sometimes people will flee, but if that's a real problem, then change the standard so that more force is allowed at the first level--don't blur the first and second levels together.
Jiro
2d ago
It doesn't matter if you were "just" fleeing, if you do so by means of driving your car at the police. If you choose to do that, you are putting their life in danger, and they have a right to defend themselves.
In this case it takes two to choose. Unless you're really aiming the car at the police intentionally, I would say that it's not you who are putting their life in danger, it's them, by creating the situation where fleeing can't be distinguished from a threat.
If they handcuffed a knife to your hand almost anything you do would "choose" to put them in danger. Nevertheless, I wouldn't give the police the benefit of the doubt for "danger" when they handcuff knives to suspects' hands.
I am not suggesting that officers can't stop you from fleeing. The problem is that we already have standards of what they are permitted to do to stop you from fleeing, and those standards don't let them shoot you.
Either let them shoot you for fleeing, or don't. Don't say "they can't shoot you for fleeing" and then let them game fleeing into looking like a threat so they can shoot you for that.
Jiro
2d ago
Yes they are, if you floor it at them.
They can shoot you if you drive at them, but they can't shoot you if you are just fleeing.
If you think they should be able to shoot you for just fleeing, make a law that says they can. If not, don't have policies whose effect is that it's hard to distinguish between fleeing and driving at them, thus letting them shoot you for fleeing.
Jiro
2d ago
If they shoot you because you "attacked an officer" and he "feared for his life" then sure, it was set up by the officer. It's a form of the officers gaming the system.
If the officers try to stop you using a level of force that would be justified in a regular arrest of a fleeing person who is not surrounded but who they (for instance) managed to catch up with, then no.
Jiro
2d ago
The police arrests people for non-violent offenses all the time, you still don't get to floor it to get away from them, and flooring your car at them is violent in itself.
The police are not permitted to shoot you if you floor your car to get away. Even though you "don't get to" do it, the procedure the police must follow in that situation is different. They should not be permitted to blur the difference between that and a situation where they do get to shoot you, and then shoot you because they can't tell the difference.
Jiro
2d ago
The decision to speed off was not set up by the officer, but the inability to distinguish between two types of speeding off (fleeing and attacking the officer) was set up by the officer.
Likewise if the officer handcuffs a knife to your hand, and you flee, your decision to flee was not set up, but if the officer says "for all I know he might be trying to use the knife on me", that lack of knowledge was set up.
Jiro
2d ago
Why? Under that logic, any arrest can negate fear for their life. An arrest is placing themselves into a situation with people who have not been following the law, who may decide to react violently to losing their freedom.
The difference is that in that case the officer would be shooting people who are intentionally violent, not nonviolent people who looked violent because the officer set up the situation in a way that made it hard to tell. It would be as if the officer arrested someone, handcuffed a knife to his hand, and then shot the suspect when he tried to flee because of fear that the suspect would use the knife on him.
(Obviously there is a sliding scale of such things. An arrest causes some increase in nonviolent reactions that appear violent and standing in front of a car causes some increase in actual violence. But I'd say that standing in front of the car is much farther along the scale.)
Jiro
3d ago
She got shot because part of her fleeing meant that she drove into an ICE agent, who now has reasonable cause to fear that she attempted to end his life.
The fact that fleeing meant driving into an ICE agent was under control of the ICE agent. This fact should, under a reasonable set of rules of engagement, negate or at least seriously make harder whether the agent can claim fear for his life, even if he did.
Jiro
3d ago
As I've said before I don't like litigating split second decision making. Most of your post is that.
The only real person with the ability to make decisions beforehand that could have prevented this is Good.
The officer could have prevented it by not getting in front of the car.
Jiro
3d ago
Even if she had not nearly run someone over and no one had shot her, she still did the wrong thing by driving away.
If you can pass a law which says that the authorities can shoot someone for driving away, get it passed.
If you can't pass such a law, then you should let them drive away.
Pick one.
The problem with the idea generalizes though--the problem is that you make ethical behavior dependent on what you can see. So you have fewer ethical requirements if you have unrelated reasons to not see so much.
More options
Context Copy link