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!
Given that the other videos showed the cars wheel were fully turned, I don't think she was deliberately trying to run him down. I think she was trying to recklessly and illegally trying to escape police detainment, and between the panic and bad driving and recklessness, may have clipped the officer with her car. This is downstream of her probably being misinformed that ICE had no ability to arrest her. As I understand it, ICE cannot serve arrest warrants for citizens, but if citizens are illegally obstructing ICE operations they ICE does have the power to arrest. So she and her GF thought they could smirk and harass and insult and obstruct and then drive off with no consequences.
I think the shooting is legally justified, but I wouldn't want that officer hired to be my local beat cop. He was more careless with his positioning and more trigger happy than he had to be.
Yeah I think given this encounter and his recent history being dragged by a car, he's unlucky at best and should probably be transferred to a desk or something.
Perhaps every officer who fires their gun should just be retired from working on the street. It's certainly rare enough.
Luck has nothing to do with it. Democrats are telling their voters to do this.. And their PD's and DA's broadly let them get away with it too.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I am inclined to agree with this characterization, though I think there are still many unknowns. The direction of the wheels is likely the clearest circumstantial indicator of her intent. It's where she wanted to "go." At the time of acceleration, her wheels were in the process of turning right, seemingly to escape the stop. In my view, this was to complete the K-turn motion that she began with her short reverse, and leave the scene. Simultaneously, the officer was crossing in front of the vehicle, to her left. If she wanted to ram the officer, you would expect her to begin turning left at some point to track the officer's movement, but there is no indication of this. Thus, I'm inclined to believe that she had minimal intent to harm, and any harm was accidental or hasty. There's even a moment earlier in the footage where the officer stands right in front of her car, and she opts not to drive into him. Hardly some Democrat wet-dream vigilante crime. She would have to be basically brain dead to try and harm an officer with passengers and a pet in the car, and even the most antisocial irrational people I know would never put their pets in harm's way. I blame the folks egging her on.
Whether or not the shooting was legal or justified based on the officer's perception, that's a different question. But I think this detail in particular exonerates Good from the charge of wanting to injure the officer.
If I wanted to be maximally uncharitable about her motives, I would say, (I do not actually believe this) her wheels are straight at the moment she starts accelerating, but she turns to avoid the officer when she sees his gun and realizes it's a bad idea to try to run him over.
Again I don't actually believe this, but if I probably would if I was motivated to portray her as evil.
More options
Context Copy link
Let’s pose a question. If she was on BlueSky and watching a twitter video of the incident of a different leftist driving with everything being the same except the officer doesn’t shoot. In this case the officer is hit and let’s say one of his lefts is mangled and eventually amputated?
My guess is she would think something like “the officer got what he deserved”. If she was on a jury of the driver charged with aggravated assault she probably wouldn’t convict.
While I don’t think tried to kill the officer — I also don’t think she had any concern if she did hurt the officer while evading arrest. In her mind the officer is subhuman and illegitimate so she doesn’t care much about what happens to them.
My gut says this is solidly in the category of didn’t try to kill but had zero concern about the officers safety. In many cases that ends up getting people killed.
I don't think this actually matters; her character doesn't determine whether it was a good shoot, what matters is whether the situation is one in which
self defensean officer shooting an individual was permissible.To be clear, I think it's obviously met here, even if all of the following are granted (and I don't necessarily agree they all were):
Even given all that, the death of the woman is a tragedy - a tragedy of her own making, but still a tragedy. Baying for the blood of your enemies is something that reflects a poor character, and is corrosive to your soul. Them calling for your blood is a reflection of how horrible they are - don't justify it by being the monster they want.
More options
Context Copy link
I think engaging in hypotheticals like this is ultimately unproductive. You have taken a political attitude that Good may have held ("ICE bad") and generalized it to an attitude toward violence ("Therefore ICE agents are not deserving of, or at least need little consideration regarding, safety"). These two claims are, in fact, a grand canyon apart - not simply p therefore q. There is nothing to suggest Good was a longtime agitator or rallied behind violent acts.
I don't disagree that she was reckless, but I don't think we need to engage in broad speculation about why. I don't believe the reason behind that recklessness (or even the recklessness itself) really affects the moral calculus here.
Obviously a person state of mind you can never be 100% sure. But I think my description is a good educated guess. A person who tracks and harasses ICE likely has those views.
Also her wife was name calling ICE moments before so I think it would be a reasonable belief a same-sex couple has similar views (men often have different views than their wives so that would be less likely).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Also I believe meets the definition of depraved-indifferent murder, in jurisdictions with such a thing. It just feels like that meme, with "I didn't mean to kill him, I just didn't care" and someone responding "That's worse. You know that's worse, right?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She doesn’t seem panicked at all in the video. She is smiling, unstressed, comes across as giddy, arrogant, cognizant
She certainly is earlier in the video, but we lose track of her face as her girlfriend yells at her to drive, I assume that might have been some adrenaline rush at that point that would have contributed to her bad/reckless driving. I would think there is a case for charging the girlfriend.
Felony murder?
One of my group chats speculated about this. She is clearly participating in the crime of obstructing police, but I'm not enough of a lawyer to know if the felony murder rule can be applied. Obstruction is a misdemeanor, and it is the felony murder rule after all. (I am also not enough of a lawyer to know if that's what the word "felony" in "felony murder" refers to)
What I can say is that it is an extremely safe bet that if she gets charged it won't be by the state of Minnesota.
There is in some jdxs misdemeanor murder as well. I don’t know if the law she broke (or rather laws) constitute a felony (including fleeing)
Well, striking the officer with the vehicle is an assault with a deadly weapon, which is a felony, but I am not lawyer enough to know if you can charge the wife in this situation. She does shout "drive!", which is not protected speech because it is an "incitement of imminent lawless action," but I'm not sure what actual law you would charge them under. Conspiracy? My knowledge of the law is mostly limited to what laws I might expect to involve me in some way (mostly self defense), so criminal conspiracies are a lot more of a grey area.
If they are out of a group that coordinates interfering with the enforcement of law, I wonder if you can get RICO charges against the whole group and then 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
You do not lose track of her face as she accelerates she is smiling and then closes her mouth with a grin.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She wasn't panicked until the other ICE employee wearing a balaclava charged in yelling "get out of the fucking car".
Right, except that never happened. There's a video higher up in the comment chain where you can see that didn't happen.
It also conveniently shows her not being panicked.
More options
Context Copy link
I question your authenticity.
I don't think it's a good idea to publicly question the authenticity of people who post opinions that appear to be quite common. It drives me absolutely insane that mods on Reddit accuse me of being inauthentic or "trolling" for posting opinions held by the median Republican. Don't fall into the same trap.
It would’ve been reasonable to post this if hyperbolic yesterday. But after the video today it seems straight trolling.
I really dislike this sort of debating where whoever is in hostile territory needs to be 100% perfect and get everything 100% correct or they get eviscerated and get called intellectually dishonest. Zero charity extended. (I get this all the time on Reddit)
Like, when @LiberalRetvrn said the ICE agent was yelling "get out of the fucking car", but actually the agent was just saying it very firmly in a confrontational way - not actually yelling. So he's technically factually wrong so now everyone gets to sneer and dunk on him. Or when he claimed the woman was panicked, but people here are certain that she wasn't panicked based on half a second of low pixel facial expressions in that video. So he's factually wrong again and is being a dishonest troll and everyone gets to dunk on him.
I think this type of response from the community is primarily driven by a certain type of leftist poster who exists here, on the rest of the internet, and even in real life... who just does not engage in reality based thinking and every time something happens they spin out a narrative, it's never true, they update only if piled on tremendously, and then they move on to the next excuse.
As an example all the woke-trolling here in the wake of the event leaning on "oh no, she's definitely here randomly and is scared of these unknown masked figures" as if it is as all reasonable to believe that given all of the interviews that were available from the moment the shooting happened (and common sense). But if you lie like that you will convince people and some people will never update (see: Rittenhouse shooting).
And if it's not lying then its believing something that is clearly not true (in the sense that it makes little sense) and was untrue last time and the time before that, and therefore becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling or excess blindness.
It makes me mad just writing this comment, which is why people so aggressively pile on.
It is the belief of many moderates and conservatives that the woke-left live in a world where things like reason, consistency, and common sense do not apply....and it's frustrating to see and results in piling on.
Left leaning comments on these sorts of things are almost always objectively wrong. A half dozen people have to have "shooting to maim" explained to them every time a cop shoots someone.
If you don't want these people to get dogpiled make them be correct more often about the facts.
From there we can get to the murkier business of ethics and so on.
More options
Context Copy link
It isn’t half a second. It’s the entire interaction. It’s clear that’s the reaction she wanted.
And I’m not asking him to be 100% correct. I am asking him to refrain from making a claim that is pretty clearly more likely than not false.
More options
Context Copy link
I also thought his comment yesterday about how vital states rights are to resisting the federal government interfering with the agricultural productivity of its non citizens to be a little too on the nose. (The phrase "way of life" especially.)
More options
Context Copy link
It's interesting you see it this way, because from my point of you it looks like LiberalRetvrn just gets to make shit up, and to even respond we have to provide timestamped videos.
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
This does not mean her intent was to kill or injure the officer. I disagree with your assessment of her affect, but even if I accepted it to be true, that's not sufficient to establish intent to harm. I could just as easily suggest that her expression comes from the rebellious thrill of evading the officer or is an idiosyncratic stress response. Regardless, these questions are long distant from the question of if the shot was justified.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link