Spookykou
10d ago
I feel like a lot of the talk about Babbitt seems to assume that nothing short of lethal force would work. I think this is because currently our law enforcement uses basically no force when dealing with rioters so riots get out of hand. It is very easy and practical to use non-lethal force to crowd control unarmed people. If the police fully utilized the non-lethal options at their disposal to deal with rioters, rubber bullet, tear gas, water cannons, truncheons, handcuffs, etc. then I think that should be more than sufficient to control such hypothetical situations.
Spookykou
10d ago
So, if I had argued, for example, that Rene Good was fighting against a rightful authority, and Babbitt was fighting against an illegitimate authority, I would obviously be making an argument that could be very easily swayed by motivated reasoning, even if it could also be a principled argument in theory.
If Babbitt had been a leftists I would absolutely make the same argument, but I am not really sure how I can convince you of that, and I am not really sure which part of my argument feels like partisan hackery to you.
I accept that Babbitt was doing something illegal, that it warranted a response of force from the police, just that, as she did not seem to pose a credible threat to anyone, that force should be non-lethal.
Does that position really seem so devested from baseline reality?
Honestly, I think my position on both of these cases would be the 90%+ majority opinion of Americans if the politics could somehow be removed from them.
Spookykou
10d ago
I certainly support the police using force against rioters and ending riots swiftly, but I don't really put rioting into the category of things that get you summarily executed, in the same way that, being an active shooter would. I view rioting as a crime more in line with vandalism or assault. If you are assaulting someone with a knife, then the police are justified in shooting you, if you are assaulting someone with your fists, although it could still be deadly, I would prefer the cops to try and physically restrain and arrest you rather than giving you new holes.
Spookykou
10d ago
Sometimes police need to use lethal force to enforce the laws. Like, if a criminal is trying to kill the police, or other people, then obviously the police should use lethal force.
Sometimes police need to use non-lethal force to enforce the laws. Like, a naked man running down the street, or breaking up a drunken brawl.
If the police use lethal force in a situation that does not call for lethal force, that is bad.
I do not think Ashli Babbit was a case where lethal force was warranted. Renee Good is very arguably a case where lethal force was warranted, on grounds of self defense.
Ashli Babbit was a case where non-lethal force was warranted.
A rioter who is just a rioter should be roughed up a bit, thrown in jail, and fully punished under the law.
A rioter who seriously endangers the lives of others, might warrant a bullet, and if not, absolutely warrants all of the above.
Maybe this stance does not constitute 'innocent martyr and the other got what she deserved' but my position is that the office in the Good case should not be charged with anything and the officer in the Babbit case is a murderer.
Spookykou
13d ago
This case is a bit tough for me. The shot seems clearly more justified than the Babbitt shot. It seems to me at least reasonable that the officer could have thought the woman was trying to run him over, but personally my feeling is that the woman was simply trying to flee, recklessly.
The real reason the case bothers me is that, in the course of my life, I have often dealt with police trying to block off or redirect traffic. In two such cases the police (in my opinion) did such a poor job of this that I ended up driving into some area where I was not supposed to be. In both interactions the police were very aggressive and angry with me (at least at first; I'd like to think my genuine befuddlement wins them over in the end). While the situation is not perfectly analogous, I can't shake the mild fear that one of the officers could have believed that I was driving recklessly or intentionally into the blocked-off area, and viewed my action as a "deadly threat."
Ultimately, I think the police need to be able to use force to enact the law and take a very dim view of any sort of right to flee, but I can't help but wonder if the cop who murdered Babbitt would have murdered me for being confused and in the wrong place in my car.
Spookykou
14d ago
Explicate
Nothing too complicated, take your post replace your brother-in-law with Bandit (the Dad from Bluey) and you've got the argument.
Probably, fire is pretty deadly even if modern electronics have gotten so safe that most people have forgotten.
More options
Context Copy link