This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'd say this is a mischaracterization, but so is how you've summarized the case.
The outrageous part of the ruling was that whether or not someone could consider themselves seized was dependent upon their race. Sum, as a Pacific Islander, could consider him seized by the police even without any language about being detained or arrested coming from the police.
As a result, the cop knocking on the window, saying they'd had some crime in the area, and asking for identification, counts as a seizure. Since it wasn't proper to effect a seizure at that point, all the fruits of this "seizure" are inadmissible.
If Sum were a white guy, this would not be the case, and he could be prosecuted for giving a fake identity to police.
To clarify, I was not defending the decision. It is so prolix that I lost interest in a analyzing its reasoning.
That being said, whether it is outrageous is actually a more difficult decision than it appears. "'[A] person has been "seized" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment only if, in view of all the circumstances surrounding the incident, a reasonable person would have believed that he was not free to leave.'" Davis v. Dawson, 33 F. 4th 993, 997 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554, 100 S.Ct. 1870, 64 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980)).
The "reasonable person" who is confronted with "all the circumstances" shows up a lot in US law, and there is all sorts of case law about what that "reasonable person" is: It is just the average person, or do courts consider specific attributes of the person in determining what a reasonable person with those attributes would do. For example, in a self-defense case, the fact that person is a battered spouse/etc can be used to assess the reasonableness of his or her belief that the victim poses an imminent threat. OTOH, courts have said that, re heat of passion, "the standard always remains that of the ordinary reasonable person. The defendant's conduct is not measured against that of, for example, the ordinary reasonable gang member or the ordinary reasonable person who 'was intoxicated' or 'suffered various mental deficiencies' or 'psychological dysfunction due to traumatic experiences.'" People v. Dominguez, 66 Cal. App. 5th 163, 176 (2021).
Now, regarding seizures, I am pretty confident that there are some interactions with police which a middle aged, upper middle class white guy in Beverly Hills would see as a relatively benign interaction, but which a black teenager in the South Bronx would interpret as indicating that he is not free to leave. Ditto re plenty of poor white young men. Now, whether those attributes should matter is not an easy question: There is a lot to be said for giving police clear rules, and looking to a generic reasonable person does add some clarity. OTOH, a lot of harm, injustice, and poor policy has resulted from assuming that everyone is a generic person who acts like a generic person, esp since those in positions of power tend to assume that the generic person is like them, and that those who respond differently than does a middle class Joe is acting "unreasonably."
Again, as that should make clear, I am neither defending nor criticizing the decision the court reached on that question.
Perhaps, but I would deny that a perception not based on reality is "reasonable", regardless of how common it is. If a white person in this situation would believe he can leave, but a black person would believe "I'll be shot if I leave", we really ought to require that the court determine whether the police would actually shoot a black person in such a situation. That step seems to be missing here; instead, the court decided that race should be presumed relevant and was perfectly fine with lack of evidence.
No, a perspective not based on reality is not reasonable. But not all perspectives re police held by upper middle class folks are based on reality, either.
As for what the court actually did in this case, the defendant's race does not seem to have been much of a factor in the end. Rather, the key was that the cop woke someone sleeping in the car because he suspected the car was stolen: "Based on the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could easily conclude that if Sum had refused to identify himself and requested to be left alone, Deputy Rickerson would have failed to honor Sum’s request because the deputy was investigating Sum for car theft."
If Sum had asked if he was free to go he would have had a solid case if the deputy had said no. Instead all we have is speculation on what an objective observer could "easily conclude" the deputy would have done had Sum asked, and we treat that as if it is what had happened.
Also this is the Sum decision's definition of objective observer:
You say that because you are not familiar with Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. What we actually have here is a court doing what courts do in Fourth Amendment cases, and have done for at least 55 years, since Terry v. Ohio: Determine whether a reasonable person would have believed he is free to leave, or more precisely in this case, free to terminate the encounter. Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429, 435-436 (1991) ["when a person "has no desire to leave" for reasons unrelated to the police presence, the "coercive effect of the encounter" can be measured better by asking whether "a reasonable person would feel free to decline the officers' requests or otherwise terminate the encounter"]
In other words, courts do exactly what the court said: Try to determine what a reasonable person think the cop would say if he said, "Go away. I don't want to talk to you"? That is precisely what it mean to say "I believe that I am free to leave."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link