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 -
The point is that if you're a cop and someone starts driving their car at you at close range while you're trying to arrest them it's very reasonable to assume they might be trying to run you over, and that is a textbook deadly threat that warrants deadly force in response.
Yes, and you should not do these things when there is a cop (or anybody else) standing right in front of your car because you could kill them.
I find this attempt to lawyer the fine points of what happened to ultimately justify it wrong headed. It was wrong before it started, this situation should have never happened in the first place and desperately trying to rules lawyer down to the second obfuscates that. There are so many dangerous incompetences and failures of legitimate governances and good police work from the start, that are not remotely justified. That said:
No. Again, you try to hide from the fact that a car went to stationary to pulling out (after ICE decided to randomly start assaulting the woman). That's not fast, and it's in fact it's texbook running away from a high pressure situation (which ICE caused) because you're scared. If he didn't sidestep, he was at risk of maybe getting his foot run over and breaking it or getting a bruise on his side. If you reeeealy stretch maybe she could have actually killed him by getting him pinned over the wheel and drive over him repeatedly. I do think if a parked car started in front of you and started pulling out your adrenaline would spike (this is probably key), but I don't think it's all that super dangerous or hard to sidestep, which is what he did.
And no, it does not "warrant deadly force." Why would shooting a car help, if you thought it was coming right for you? It might work, but it might make the situation worse. Unless the car is far away from you and you can dodge it easily anyway, look a movie showdown, shooting a car to kill is objectively the wrong thing to do. You shoot someone in a car you don't want to get away or to have vengeance on, not to control and stop a car. The best you can say is that the ICE agent was stupid and didn't think in the split second. But it's not the right response for self defense pragmatically, let alone morally justified.
""""Cops"""" should not be able to create I-get-to-murder-for-free situations for anyone they don't like in a car, where they get to declare a car a "lethal weapon" in a non falsifiable blanket statement. A car is actually rarely a deadly weapon. And there should be expectation and standards of behavior and bravery for cops. Being hyped, jumpy, or feeling subjectively scared is not the same as being actually dangerously threatened (which is different than being threatened unilaterally in a situation you can do nothing about and didn't cause). People that can't handle that or tell the difference shouldn't have been allowed to touch a gun or be given the imperium of the state monopoly on violence, especially against citizens.
The law doesn't hold use of force to the standard of "it has to actually stop the threat." A good guy drawing his gun on a bad guy has no guarantee of being able to stop the bad guy, but we still recognize that the good guy has the legal and moral right to draw his gun. Is it a bad idea tactically? Maybe (e.g. drawing from the drop), but that doesn't mean the good guy loses the claim to self-defense if he does end up doing it.
Regarding who caused what, when the ICE agent stands near her car, he's standing off to the side and it's not at all clear that he's initially in the path of the vehicle were it to start moving forward. Only when she starts moving the car and turns the wheels does he end up being in the way. Again, this all happened in the span of a second so it's hard to see how he exactly was the instigator of the situation. The best thing for her to have done would have been to sit still and not move the car at all, because suspects do not have the right to flee from police.
Why the excessive levels of quotation? ICE are legitimate law enforcement with the authorities and abilities of any law enforcement agency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link