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 -
A woman in Minneapolis has been killed in an altercation with ICE. I don’t really trust any of the narratives being spun up. Here are
twothree angles:Angle 1
Angle 2 [Twitter] [youtube]
Angle 3 (Emerged as I was writing this)
This is actually a fairly discussed type of shooting. Law enforcement confronts a person in a vehicle, the LEO positions himself in front of the vehicle, the person in the vehicle drives forward, and the cop shoots the person. Generally, courts have found that this is a legitimate shoot. The idea being that a car can be as deadly a weapon as anything.
Those who are less inclined to give deference to law enforcement argue that fleeing the police shouldn’t be a death sentence, and that usually in these situations the LEO has put himself in front of the vehicle.
I have a long history of discussing shooters in self-defense situations [1] [2] [3] and also one of being anti-LEO. However, I’m softer on the anti-LEO front in the sense that within the paradigm in which we exist, most people think the state should enforce laws, and that the state enforcing laws = violence.
The slippery slope for me: “Fleeing police shouldn’t be a death sentence”
“Resisting arrest shouldn’t be a death sentence”
“If you just resist hard enough, you should be able to get away with it”
People really try to divorce the violence from state action, but the state doesn’t exist without it.
Well, fleeing shouldn't be a death sentence. But attempting to strike an officer with your car can be. (agent, officer, whatever). Sure, her intent was to flee, and striking the officer was simply a side effect to which she was completely indifferent. In Minnesota, if the officer died, it would have been considered depraved-heart murder, the second degree felony of which Derek Chauvin was convicted.
As for the officer, what happened? While he was getting his gun out, the car accelerated, he panicked, tried to get out of the way, was clipped by the car, and awkwardly shot his assailant through the driver-side window. There was less than a second between the assailant stepping on the gas and the shot being fired. Why did he shoot through the window? The car unexpected turned away, which is why he didn't become a pancake.
I don't think shooting was "the right move," in that by the time the shot was actually fired the danger had already passed. But that's a skill issue - the decision to shoot initially was 100% justified, as is backed by countless cases.
A leftist attempted to end the officer's life, or at least acted in a way that was completely indifferent to it, and because of that she died. Now most other leftists are trying to end his life a different way. We're not going to stand for it this time, or Monday Morning QB in ultra-slow motion the actions an officer took when a leftist protester was trying to murder him.
While we cannot see inside someone's brain from a video, the explanation above is perfectly rational, consistent with the evidence, and clearly the most likely explanation (compared the delulu fantasy that the officer for no reason decided he wanted to kill someone). Many will pretend not to understand, or pretend that it is implausible, hence making discourse impossible. I am not going to argue with them. Instead, we are simply going to call on the Trump administration and red states to protect this officer from Minnesota's deranged courts. We will not let people who openly brag about wanting to kill ICE agents lie about what happened today. This time, we are holding the line.
I don't think it's right to characterize this as so unexpected as to excuse the result of his decision. He's a trained police officer who chose to stand in front of a vehicle and to use his gun to try to stop it. He put someone's life in his hands and therefore needed to be able to quickly react to all reasonably foreseeable outcomes. He could have looked at her tires to see she was already turning the other way. He needed to not panic. He needed to not shoot once the apparent threat was gone. If he couldn't handle that kind of situation, he needed to not put himself in one.
Even if she had been trying to run him over, the car continued for some distance afterward until it slammed into a parked car. How would him shooting her have protected himself?
It was a wholly preventable death and if his best defence shows that he was incompetent, then he should at least be guilty of manslaughter.
I am paying him to stand in front of that car. It’s literally his job. And to use necessary force to enforce our laws. If he’s detaining a person we give him the ability to do that detention.
My understanding is that police are generally told not to stand in front of cars and shoot the drivers to try to stop them because it's dangerous and it doesn't work, as you can see in this video. After she was shot, the car continued forward until it crashed into a parked car. So he went against the standard police procedure, killed someone, and failed to stop the car.
Sure. But that’s not a legal standard. Yes it’s kind of dumb for a cop to stand in front of car, but if he decides to it’s still attempted murder to drive into him. And legally he has the right to block her and attempt to detain. I voted for him to detain.
And now that he killed someone; how many of people are going to be physically obstructing ICE? A lot less. Which means they spend more time deporting which is what I voted for.
It's not attempted murder. This is hyperbole. Murder requires intent. It's very unlikely she knew he was there when she started driving and then she immediately turned to her right. She did not deliberately drive into him. Her car brushed by him.
It absolutely matters for his legal defence if he recklessly put himself into a dangerous situation by walking in front of a moving vehicle.
Resisting arrest with a car is attempted murder.
Resisting arrest using violence or force on an officer is a felony. If the officer dies that then is of course felony murder since a felony was done even if there was never an intent to kill the officer.
Legally murder does not require intent to murder. It requires intent to commit a felony which happened here.
None of this is true. All of these crimes require other elements which you are ignoring. It is not as simple as this.
Murder doesn't require intent to kill, but attempted murder does.
Killing someone while committing a felony is not necessarily felony murder.
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
More options
Context Copy link
Speak for yourself. You have been warned about this before.
Three day ban to cool off.
This rule is consistently the most confusing one to me. Everything sulla says comes with the implicit qualifier “so thinks sulla.” Why is using “we” so offensive, obviously sulla is referring to those that agree with him. He never said anything like “All of the motte agrees leftists are retarded.”
Leaving that qualifier implicit is like a cat puffing itself up. It’s a threat display. “So thinks Sulla…and some other people. How many? Guess. :3”
Rhetorically convenient. Not conducive to discussion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Although I agree with the moderated post, I also agree with @netstack that The Motte isn't the place for this sort of chest thumping and grandstanding. Take it to X.
More options
Context Copy link
Leftist mod abusing the rules proving the posters point. Ironic.
Well then you'll love this. You have one of the longest mod records here. You are one of those users whose list of warnings and tembans (with zero AAQCs) requires the scroll button. You have been told specifically to knock it off with the ankle-biting "Waaaah! The mods are leftist and biased!" whining.
Basically, everything I told you before.
Because it's been a while, and because we generally dislike banning people for attacking mods or criticizing moderation (even when they really, really deserve it) I am not permabanning you. But you can take a month off, and if you don't come back, I doubt you will be missed.
For everyone else:
Here's yet another tedious exchange we have all the time on the Motte:
Culture Warring Poster: "I HATE MY ENEMIES! BOO MY ENEMIES! MY ENEMIES SUCK! CAN WE KILL MY ENEMIES?"
Mod: "Don't talk like that. This is not what the Motte is for."
Tiresome Anklebiter: "But I agree with him! His/my enemies do suck! Obviously the mod sympathizes with my enemies!"
If you haven't internalized the idea that we discuss the culture war (and the multifarious ways in which your enemies suck) but this isn't a place for rallyng the troops or consensus building, let alone talking about how much you want to curb-stomp your enemies, then you are being intentionally obtuse.
Fwiw, IMO @sulla's post would have been okay until the last paragraph.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This was my first thought as well, but my second thought is, "in the split second, if you think this person is willing to run you over, just because they missed the first time doesn't mean they won't run someone else over." If the deceased hit another ICE agent on the way out, everyone would be asking why this guy didn't take his shot.
More options
Context Copy link
Are you sure the motte is the correct site for you, then? You might have a better chance to reach the Trump administration on X or Truth Social, I think.
Also, I am not sure what standing Trump has to interfere with state law being applied. Are you suggesting that he sends the Delta force to extradite the shooter?
If you visit a jurisdiction, you are placing yourself in the tender cares of its justice system, however biased it might be. This is one reason why I would avoid visiting Iran -- Sharia law is not really my kink.
Juries have their own regional biases. I would assume that in the 1950s South, a white guy killing a black guy would have a higher probability of being acquitted for reasons of self defense, all things being equal, than vice versa. My advice to a black guy in the 50s would be to not be in the South and try his best to keep his nose clean if he has to be there. This is not a great solution, but what is the alternative? Not letting Texas hold murder trials until 1980?
Sympathies vary vastly between groups. Violence which is seen as self-defense nine times out of ten when enacted by a cop might be seen as a felony nine times out of ten when enacted against a cop (try "I thought the cop was going to run me over, so obviously I shot him").
Unluckily for the shooter, ICE is about as popular in blue areas as a black guy accused of murdering a white man in the '50s South. To be fair, he knew that when he signed on. The reason that Trump pays ICE high salaries and a big signing bonus is that it is common knowledge that half of the country considers them his brownshirts. If he gets convicted for a shooting for which a jury would have ruled self-defense when committed by a local cop, that is just an occupational hazard.
I'm reasonably sure that the state of Minnesota cannot charge or arrest a federal law enforcement officer for acts that occur in the line of duty.
I'm not sure about 9 out of 10 but it is straightforwardly correct that police officers have legal authority to use force in ways that the rest of us don't, because we are not police officers. If you do not understand why the people whose actual job is to arrest criminals on behalf of the legal system have more latitude to use force than the rest of us whose only accountability to the legal system is to not break laws, I'm not sure what to tell you.
I was not not saying that I did not understand it, or I thought it was bad. Obviously we allow cops to use violence which would land civilians in jail. Someone has to execute the arrest warrants, after all.
I am also fine with them getting a bit more leniency when claiming self-defense (which was what I was going for here specifically, and where cops are not intrinsically privileged over civilians as a matter of law, afaik). In particular, we can generally skip the question what poor life choices on your part may have led to you having to wield deadly force to defend your own life -- dealing with people who might be unstable or violent (so the rest of us won't have to) is their job.
On the other hand, I would also hold them to a higher standard than civilians (in pretty much the same way you would hold a physician rendering first aid to a higher standard). "I panicked, and just acted on autopilot, and was not even aware that the aggressor had long been incapacitated and the need for self-defense was over" for example is an excuse I would be much more likely to buy from a civilian.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Me neither, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some kind of federal immunity in play here.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link