rokmonster
Lives under a rok.
No bio...
User ID: 1473
The definition of a scissor statement (or event) is that both sides are very confident in opposite interpretations. What you are quoting is falling on one side, and you are very confident in your interpretation. Thank you for representing that perspective. Let's start with your last paragraph.
All this to say I am horrified at some of the upvote-downvote patterns in the threads this last week and I'm not lying, it hurt my faith in humanity a bit, and the Motte specifically. Are people really so wrapped up in the culture war that they have lost empathy for a dead mother has a child who's six years old and an orphan because she's on the 'other side'? That the officer did nothing wrong? Quibbling over "domestic terrorism" definitions as if that's in any way the way you'd describe it? She blocked half a road for likely five minutes in her local neighborhood because ICE was hanging out around schools to nab immigrant parents as their kids get out. She said stuff like "I'm not mad at you" and "I'm pulling out", and those are not the words attempting to murder a federal agent. For fuck's sake, someone (possibly Ross) called her a "fucking bitch" not two seconds after she was shot, which cuts the other way. Again: none of this requires you to think Good's wife, for example (!), or nearby protestors, or Good, are virtuous, only to think that the cop did at least something wrong. Something is wrong, and it's the attitude here.
From my perspective, my political philosophy is very much not defined by empathy. I try to look at the system: motivations for behavior, what people on each side are thinking, what our society has decided is right to do (via tradition and via the law). I was raised to believe that Justice should be blind; the tragedy in Minnesota should be no more or no less tragic and no more or less justified if a middle-aged, childless man was driving and a mother of three was shooting. (In practice I admit that I do value mothers' lives above childless mens' lives.)
I also recognize that people are irrational in the moment and have their own interpretations of events. From the driver's perspective, she was fleeing an attempted kidnapping and probably didn't see the officer. Fleeing was irrational. From the officer's perspective the agents had initiated an arrest, the suspect was fleeing, and the car was coming at him (and he had been dragged by a car before). Shooting was irrational.
Lets start with where we agree:
- I agree that it is a tragedy when people die.
- Federal agents do not, or should not, have "absolute immunity," and giving the executive branch immunity is dangerous. I'm unsure, but AFAIK they have "qualified immunity". (I'm unsure because this might have changed with a recent Supreme Court ruling which expands immunity to the office of the President.)
- I agree that the "domestic terrorism" accusations are hyperbole. The goal of these particular anti-ICE activists was to slow down and interfere with ICE operations, not to terrorize their political opposition (or ICE agents). (However, there is a population whose goal is to terrorize ICE agents, which is why ICE wears balaclavas now.)
- I agree that law enforcement officers shouldn't approach vehicles from the front, and find it plausible that this is against policy.
- I think this situation was likely due to bad driving habits rather than malicious intent. By chance, just this weekend I saw someone reverse out of a parking space, change gears, and turn the wheel while accelerating with wheels pointed at a pedestrian who was crossing past the parking spot. Classic bad driving.
- Shooting at the driver is likely an ineffective way to get a car to stop.
- People should not have to cower in their homes if federal agents are in the neighborhood. Law enforcement should minimize the
- It is not good for law enforcement to wear masks. Law enforcement should be mostly transparent and accountable.
- She was intentionally blocking the road to block ICE prior to the incident.
- Two of the shots went through the drivers-side window.
However, there are some things that you/your video deemphasize which I think are very important.
- From slow-motion video, the tires of the vehicle start spinning (on the icy road) when they are pointed straight, and the car is in front of the agent. Pressing the accelerator when someone is in front of your vehicle is at a minimum negligent, even if you are saved by manslaughter by the spinning of those wheels atop a patch of ice. [Footnote one]
- From slow motion, we can see both feet of the ICE agent slipping backward on the icy road as the car pulls forward while his torso remains upright. This implies a force being applied to push him backward. Given that he had a cell phone in one hand and a gun in the other at this point, he was not pushing off the car's hood himself. The transcript (NYT?) phrases this as "it does look like the agent is being struck by the SUV" and "we can see the agent is not being run over." This is deceptive wording. While he was not "run over", we have it on video that he was actually struck by the SUV.
- The video emphasizes shots through the window, but the first shot went through the windshield.
Also, I believe it is relevant to quash some of the hysteria about ICE intentionally killing protestors:
- This activist had been impeding ICE vehicles for at least 3-5 minutes prior to the incident, as revealed by videos. Others alledge they had been doing so for more than half an hour.
- Impeding a federal immigration enforcement operation is a felony. (It has to be a crime because we don't want organized crime to delay immigration enforcement agents while victims of human trafficking are moved elsewhere.)
- We have on video that this activist was under law enforcement instructions to exit the car. This was an arrest in progress.
- By attempting to execute a three-point turn, this activist was fleeing arrest.
- Therefore, other activists will not meet this fate (arrest or shooting) if they find non-impeding or non-vehicular ways to protest.
The mirror to your focus on children and stuffed animals is the legalistic perspective, which shows we have an individual fleeing arrest in commission of a federal felony, who strikes one of the arresting officers with their car. At low speed and probably out of negligence, but legally that's an assault.
So I find that I probably have to agree to disagree with you about whether the officer was justified in the moment or should be charged with a crime.
He's able to get out of the way of this car, which is the number one priority. Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape if you think the subject is just escaping. You can't use deadly force. Running from the cops is not reason enough to use deadly force. You can only use it if no other reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle, which he already did. He can and did move out of the path of the vehicle.
There is a strong incentives-based counterargument here. If activists find that they can use their vehicles to block ICE, and ICE officers cannot cross paths with those vehicles when they are in "drive" (or go behind them when in "reverse"), then activists will use their knowledge of these rules to more effectively impede ICE. If activists learn they can drive away instead of being arrested, they will flee arrest in their vehicles. If activists are legally permitted to accelerate vehicles toward ICE officers and ICE officers have a duty to get out of the way (and are not allowed to retaliate), then we are incentivizing activists who intentionally use their vehicles to scatter ICE agents. This seems like very dangerous behavior.
Finally, there are several things you emphasize which just don't matter:
- The activist was a mother of three who had just dropped off her kid at school.
- Stuffed animals in the car.
- The officer swearing after the incident.
- "she was a mile from home." (Additionally, I'm not sure this is true. Her car had Missouri plates.)
- Another shooting in Portland. (It seems the Portland CBP shoot was against two gang members who used their vehicle to ram officers while fleeing arrest. The situtation is sufficiently different that it doesn't show evidence of generalization.)
- The officer "casually strolling away" from the scene. Adrenaline is a hell of a drug, people can go into shock, and it is not uncommon for people to walk away from accidents only to discover broken bones later.
- How many shots were taken, and that the third shot was a "kill shot". Once the decision to use deadly force was made, the number of shots does not matter, as long as they were within the time of a reasonable human's OODA loop.
- Frankly, all of this discussion about whether the officer should be charged is unnecessary. I still trust a Grand Jury to make a good decision based on what is bound to be a lot more footage and careful thinking than is available to the press.
I originally read Rittenhouses' "crossing state lines" to be about "crossing state lines with a firearm", which would have potentially put him in legal jeopardy. But many uses were also implying malicious intent. You're right that the same rhetoric could be used here: "she crossed state lines with a weapon to attack ICE!" would be a maximally uncharitable interpretation of her actions.
More options
Context Copy link