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 -
New footage of ICE shooter
Forgive another high-level post but the body cam (or cell phone?) footage of the cop who shot has been released by AlphaNews and this may significantly change perceptions of what happened (to those willing to have perceptions changed):
https://x.com/alphanews/status/2009679932289626385?s=46
To my eyes it appears that:
The ICE agent is clearly hit by her car and goes down
The ICE agent was not standing in front of her car but walking from one side to another
The driver’s wife is not passively observing but actively shouting at the agents (this should undermine the idea that the driver and her wife were somehow neutral people accidentally caught up in everything)
Perhaps most importantly, but maybe most open to interpretation, it appears to me that the driver looks directly at the ICE agent before driving forward. From this bodycam angle, her face is clearly shown looking directly ahead where the officer is seconds before she moves her car forward.
I suppose a lot of new interpretations are possible, but to me this video footage clearly debunks several going interpretations I have seen proposed. At the very least, maybe reasonable people can agree that the cop did not shoot the driver in cold blood from the side window.
I would also not be surprised to see the idea spread that this new video is AI.
Edit: per corrections from others below, this is not bodycam but cell phone footage (my mistake as it’s clearly even labeled as such) and this explains why it tumbles at the end of the video. Thanks!
Honestly the driver looks at the ICE agent for a millisecond. I don't think she registered the ICE agent was in her path. She is a bad driver and sometimes bad driving kills someone, but I don't think this video proves that she was gunning for the agent.
That said, the thing that keeps getting missed in this discussion is that Good is dead. She's not on trial here. Her mens rea doesn't matter, except for the normal human response to tragedy is to speculate, "That could never happen to me, I would never do the thing which lead to that."
Legally speaking and physically speaking, it is entirely possible for Good to have normal intentions and still pose a serious and immanent threat to the ICE agent.
I could see 4chan or rdrama working this angle in a troll Justice4Renee campaign (like Justice4Darell). That blaming Renee is ableist and misogynistic, since as a woman she is a bad driver and couldn’t consent to hitting the ICE agent due to the power dynamics involved.
It would pair well with first caveating, like a stolen land acknowledgment, that mourning Renee may not be the “right thing to do” since “white tears are not something that’s always helpful or necessary.” This bit they wouldn’t even need to invent; reality provided it for free.
More options
Context Copy link
She clearly does not have “normal” intentions. She was being detained by ICE and the most charitable explanation you can give is she was resisting arrest but did not mean to hit the cop.
I think it’s also fairly clear that she was using her car to block ICE from using the road. Obstruction seems obvious in the video. And then resisting arrest after a lawful command to exit the vehicle.
Yes, that is true, but the innocence of the ICE agent does not hinge on any of those details.
I don’t think ICE agents are prosecutable right now. I can’t see a situation where I would vote to convict an ICE agent. I have no idea what percent of the population falls in this category but I do believe it’s significant. The opposite being it’s probably close to impossible to convict ICE protestors of obstruction in blue states.
To me, this is a very weird thing to say.
For me, the American I probably respect most is probably Scott Alexander, my rightful caliph. And yet I can think of plenty (if unlikely) situations where I would definitely vote to convict him of a crime. Even in the middle of a civil war (Grey Tribe versus the rest of the world?), I can still imagine a lot of possible behaviors I would not let slide.
That is because just like him, I am a big fan of civility, and breaking civilizational norms is generally bad.
I will charitably interpret your statement as implying 'for anything he did on the job', and hope that you would still consider convicting someone for killing his girlfriend or raping kids.
But even on the job, I can think of plenty of behaviors I would not want to see from ICE even if I was 100% convinced that they were doing god's work. Gunning down suspects fleeing on foot. Blowing up protesters' cars to dissuade others from blocking them. Torturing people to find out the whereabouts of their targets. Raping detainees. Like every other group of humans, there are likely people in ICE who need to be dissuaded from such defections against humanity by threat of punishment. Saying categorically that you would not punish them basically means endorsing all of that.
I have no problem with "I would not convict Ross for the shooting of Good". It is not a position I share (based on my impression so far, I could be persuaded either way by new evidence emerging in a trial), but for that case it is at least one of the positions within the civilizational Overton window.
I think ICE is doing gods work and that’s why it’s not a good comparison to Scott Alexander who I do like. ICE isn’t an idea….they have a mission. It’s to prevent the Brazilianification of the US. If you import a large amount of workers with no ability to do knowledge work or high incomes they will vote against mine and my children’s interests. I don’t want that. I don’t hate the immigrants. But I do think America can’t go down the path of Latam politics and it would be a disaster for civilization.
So yes I’m a guaranteed not guilty vote for any ICE actions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
ICE agents can't be prosecuted by the state for things that happened in the course of their duties, but they can still be prosecuted at the federal level.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Yes. Unfortunately "Police Officers are not allowed to shoot people driving vehicles at them" is an untenable position since it basically makes it open season for any given criminal who wants to blast their way out of a traffic stop or chase.
But it is, in fact, the law. The police cannot shoot someone to stop them from fleeing. Yes, that makes it more likely they'll flee. But there are good reasons we don't just allow the maximum punishment for all offences in order to minimize crime.
Are you having issues reading what was written?
"the police cannot shoot someone to stop them from fleeing." is an entirely different sentence than what faceh wrote which was "Police officers are not allowed to shoot people driving vehicles at them."
It's right there in the comment you were replying to.
Blasting out of a traffic stop is not the same as driving a vehicle at a police officer. Police officers don't normally stand in front of vehicles that have been pulled over. So if someone were to drive away during almost any traffic stop, the law absolutely prevents police officers from using lethal force to prevent that.
More options
Context Copy link
The poster was so adamant yesterday. Now the new video harms his/her position and now the poster seems to be spiraling.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You are reading
as
Which I don't think is a fair reading - the former is likely legal (likely life in danger based on just based on a common reading of the text) and the latter is likely not by the same standard.
No, I'm not. I'm reading
As
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This is flatly untrue. They can, they simply have to have a reasonable belief that the person poses a threat to the officer or others. They can't shoot them solely for fleeing
That's not shooting them for fleeing. That's shooting them to protect people.
The distinction is important because the law does, in fact, grant open season for any given criminal who wants to flee the police to do so long as he doesn't pose an imminent threat of severe bodily harm. Trying to use that as a reductio ad absurdum fails because the supposedly absurd scenario is unquestionably the current law.
A lot of people defending the shooting are being overly loose with what constitutes sufficient grounds for deadly force. It's important to stress that is generally not permissible to kill someone just because you have a reasonable belief he poses a threat to others. The vast majority of cases where such a threat exists would not a justify a killing, and this case, in my opinion falls squarely in that case.
The threat must be imminent and one that risks severe bodily harm, and the killing must be necessary to prevent it. The set of circumstances in which you can kill someone in self-defence is pretty narrow and being loose with the wording of the law in this way is wildly misleading.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Not what I said. Firing into a fleeing vehicle is one thing. But if the criminal is aware they can run down an officer without being fired upon...
Its a very perverse incentive, to say the least. "Why not add vehicular manslaughter to my array of charges in exchange for a 2% chance of escaping for a few more hours."
I don't understand what you think normally prevents drivers from fleeing traffic stops. Police don't ordinarily put themselves in front of vehicles to prevent them from leaving. Are you saying that they do and that, because they are legally allowed to shoot drivers in these situations, that's how they prevent driver's from fleeing traffic stops?
The reality is that drivers absolutely can just flee a traffic stop without getting shot, which I think you probably understand, so I really don't get what you're trying to say.
Is your argument that police need the right to shoot at people driving their vehicles at them to protect themselves in such situations?
I agree with you that if for some reason police officers did have good reason to be physically blocking a car with their bodies that they'd have the right to shoot someone who tried to run them over if it would help (which it normally wouldn't), and for that reason, there is some additional deterrence for the driver to run the police officer over.
But in reality, the cop shooting the driver would not normally prevent him from being run over, and it would also be a crime for the driver to run him over (in addition to the crime of fleeing). So there is plenty of deterrent. The police do not need an infinite level of deterrence capability to protect themselves against minute risks, which seem to be regularly exaggerated.
You could have a legal system that gave police very wide latitude to use the threat of force to enforce the law, incluing deliberately placing themselves in harms way, daring suspects to do something dangerous and risk getting shot. But that's not the legal system the United States has. It puts more value on protecting criminals from themselves than from giving the police the maximum level of coercive tools. It expects police officers to avoid dangerous situations to minimize the risk of anyone, including suspects from getting hurt. The shooter went against those expectations and did something he wasn't supposed to do, and it resulted in someone's death.
I don't get what you're saying here. Doesn't that quote show how the supposed incentive you're alleging doesn't exist? Why would anyone make that trade off?
That is a sufficient deterrent. You don't need to add death on top of decades in prison to the consequences of this decision. If the police think that that deterrent isn't enough, they can just not block moving vehicles with their bodies.
Normally?
A respect for the concept of 'law' as a foundational social good that is generally best to comply with even when its not in your immediate best interests.
Look... we actually saw what happens when the police are pulled back from enforcing basic rules. You can get CHAZ/CHOP.
Famously, the rate of automobile-related deaths for Black Americans shot up in the wake of George Floyd riots.
Deterrence clearly has an effect. And of course if the risks are 'minute' that doesn't inherently mean they're not put in risky situations without much notice and thus need to have the ability to respond proportionally.
I ask you seriously. If a police officer is justified in shooting a woman who is deliberately swinging a knife in his direction (and actually cuts him, nonfatally)... is it hard to see why he might also be justified in shooting a woman who is deliberately driving a car in his direction (and actually strikes him, nonfatally)?
How much 'risk' is he obligated to tolerate in either scenario?
Because they are a criminal with poor impulse control and foresight and in their mind, being arrested means going to jail and driving away, even if it hurts a cop, means maybe not going to jail.
Or they're a protestor who has been convinced by activists that a particular law enforcement agency is a force for evil and if they arrest you they'll shove you into a black site and torture you for resisting the regime and its better to 'resist'.
These are possible answers to that question.
Why do you think Cops carry guns at all?
We could eliminate almost all police shootings by simply disallowing them from carrying weapons on their persons.
I think we're in agreement that there's a medium ground between "cop can never fire their weapons except in the gravest of circumstances" and "cops should be able to gun you down if they feel the smallest threat."
I'm simply suggesting that "police officers can treat moving vehicles like other deadly weapons" is a generally good, stance. I know for sure that if somebody was apparently trying to run me down with a car, I would consider it justifiable to shoot at them. I do not think reasonable people need a 'deterrent' to not run down people with cars... but unreasonable people might.
I don't think it makes any sense to say "we can't know if the danger to the officer was real unless they actually get run over."
Then why do the police need to shoot suspects to keep them from fleeing? Maybe I misunderstood your point above.
I'm not suggesting they pull back from enforcing basic rules. I'm suggesting that this particular office adhere to the long-established and current practice of not standing in front of moving cars with a drawn pistol to stop them from fleeing. There are other ways of enforcing rules.
Yes, because it's not the same. It's a lot easier to just get out of the way of a moving car than it is to escape someone with a knife. There is a common thread in these arguments defending the shooter where they treat self-defence situations as binary. There is either a threat or there isn't. But in reality, there is always a threat. It's a question of whether the threat is sufficient. The threat posed by someone swinging a knife is much less than someone driving a car at a low speed with unclear intent.
How do you know she intended to hit him with her car? How do you know he was hit with the car?
It also matters that shooting someone driving a car is a terrible way of stopping the car, whereas it is an excellent way of stopping someone with a knife.
It's not hard for me to see how someone who ignores all of these details might think the shooting was justified. What is hard to see how is it remains justified after considering them.
Even if it works as a deterrent, there are better alternatives, which is why it's not standard police practice.
For protecting people's lives, not for preventing suspects from fleeing.
I know, and I disagree with that very strongly. They're not at all like other deadly weapons.
It would be like if it were normal for almost everyone to walk around with a gun, and if someone were being detained by the police and tried to run away, the fact that they had a gun on them justified shooting them. There would have to be some action taken by the suspect that made it likely that he planned on shooting the officer trying to detain him. That action could not be some small thing that had a remote chance of indicating an intention to kill.
I didn't say that.
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