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 answer to all of your concerns is that nobody has a right to flee from the police.
People seem to be under the impression that because the law is a set of rules, and police in particular have rules that restrict how they are allowed to enforce the law, that the whole thing is like a sport or a game, where the point of the rules is to make the game fair for the players.
So of course they see the situation where a criminal is confronted by the police, and they think, how do I make it fair, so that the criminal has a chance to win the game? It's not fair if the police have too many advantages!
This is wrong. The law is written down so that everyone knows what is legal and how they can avoid committing crimes. Limitations on the police exist so that people are not unduly harassed by police unless they are sincerely suspected of a crime. None of these things exist to make things "fair" for criminals, they exist to preserve liberty for non-criminals.
The driver of the car was the one who escalated to deadly force here.
The other very strange thing that keeps happening in police use of force discussions is the inability of the anti-police side to ever ascribe any sort of agency to anyone other than the officers. The police officer escalated the situation by... standing there! He escalated it by... drawing his firearm after the driver had already started accelerating toward him! Never any room for the possibility that the driver would still be alive if she had made any of dozens of decisions leading up to that moment any differently, starting with deciding to drive from Missouri to Minnesota to harass federal law enforcement.
Correct, but irrelevant.
Correct, but irrelevant.
The only relevant question is 'did the shooter satisfy the conditions for self defence?' this seems very marginal. The fact alone that the officer fired through a side window while not in imminent danger is going to make things extremely difficult for him if this ever goes to court.
A car is a deadly weapon and she hit him with it. The conditions for self defense do not get any more satisfied.
Not really. The standard is reasonable belief of an imminent deadly threat which can only be stopped through deadly force.
The most obvious way in which this was violated is - where was the imminent threat when the shots went through the side window?
not really; there are a maximum of five legal elements of defensive force in any state in the United States and the federal government:
your quick summary has at least 2 errors: one, it can be threat of death or serious/great bodily injury, and two, it is not a requirement the threat can only be stopped with deadly force
the cop was attempting to effectuate a lawful arrest of a woman obviously committing obstruction, the woman accelerates the suv which you can tell with the spinning tires turned towards the cop, hitting or about to hit someone with a car is a deadly force threat, cops do not have a duty to avoid but even if this was a regular person they could not retreat from an accelerating vehicle a few feet away from them in complete safety, and a person in that cop's circumstance could have both a subjective and objectively reasonable belief he's about to be run over
every single element is pretty cut-and-dried satisfied in this scenario and remember a prosecutor would need to disprove the above beyond reasonable doubt
Technically yes, in practice this is the same thing.
I believe this is incorrect; you may not use lethal force to stop a threat if it is obvious a non lethal force would suffice.
Although neither of these points seem relevant to this specific example. The problem the shooter will have, is that the moment he is alongside the car there is no longer any threat of any kind of injury to himself, yet he keeps firing. This will not be impossible to overcome but his defence would have their work cut out for them.
This is somewhat undermined by the fact that he actually did retreat in complete safety.
For the front shot, sure. That’s a plausible defence. Once the cop is alongside the car, however, the idea that he would be afraid of “slipping on the ice” or being “dragged under the vehicle” and that the only remedy to that threat is to keep firing shots into the driver is weak as hell. Good luck convincing a jury that a reasonable person would feel the same way. No, if he ever does find himself in court over this, the best bet to defend against those shots would be either ‘defence of others’ or ‘heat of the moment’, neither of which is great. I sure as shit wouldn’t want to be facing down a jury in his shoes.
no, they're not "practically" the same thing as one is not always the other
based on what? your legal experience? your sleuthing on google? vibes?
and that's not what you wrote, you wrote "which can only be stopped through deadly force"
no, he will not have a problem making the defense that 3 shots over 1 second which started in front of the car when he was struck by the accelerating car are also justified
and again, a person can use deadly self-defense force in defense of others which would also fit this scenario because a fleeing felon who just committed aggravated assault with a deadly weapon which she was still driving is an imminent deadly threat to others, including other law enforcement
he got hit by the car so he was, in fact, not able to retreat in complete safety which is the standard
and even if he wasn't hit by the car, the after-the-fact knowledge he retreated without being injured doesn't mean it wasn't reasonable for him to think he could not retreat in complete safety when he 3 feet in front of an accelerating vehicle
and again, law enforcement has special carveouts for any duty to retreat even in the 11 states which have this duty (mainly, they de facto do not have one) because otherwise law enforcement couldn't enforce laws without wholly giving up their right to lawful self-defense
that's not the standard; the standard is the jury must have zero reasonable doubt the above is wrong
There is no point arguing with you about nitpicks that aren't even relevant to this case. So reducing what you have said to just the relevant parts:
Ok, why?
A jury would have to be convinced that this was a reasonable belief in this specific circumstance. If I were a juror, you could perhaps convince me of this, but it wouldn't be easy.
OMG is he ok?
less facetiously, once he was alongside the vehicle, and had successfully retreated, and was no longer in danger, he continued to fire. These shots will require justification. Like, I'm not even arguing the first shot right now. I'm willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that that was legitimate. But you don't get to shoot someone because you have been hit - that isn't how self defense works. It's about imminent threats, not threats that have passed. the Drejka case is a good example of this.
Juries reject self defense all the time.
We are talking about a time frame of 1 second. It takes a certain amount of time for a human to take inputs from all of their senses, process it, make a decision, and then use their muscles to act out that decision. That loop does not happen instantly and it takes more time than the split seconds that elapse between firing rounds from a gun. This is why it's reasonable for a self-defender to fire more rounds from their gun even after the point you can identify, with the benefit of hindsight and the comfort of your computer screen, that they don't need to fire any more rounds. What would be unreasonable for example is if he waited 30 seconds and then fired more rounds without clear justification, but that is not what happened here.
They tend not to if they recognize that people aren't superhumans who react to changing stimuli lightning-quick in less than 1 second.
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
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link