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 -
Not immediately executing someone for doing something is not the same as allowing them to do it.
How it could be any other way is that the police don't stand in front of vehicles to try to stop them from driving away and if they drive away against police orders, they can use a number of other safe techniques for pursuing and arresting them. Standing in front of cars and shooting the drivers is way down the list of preferred options for stopping vehicles and was easily avoidable in this situation.
No, that effectively makes being in a car a get out of jail free card, especially if they haven't identified you yet, if the car is stolen, or the plates aren't visible etc. People learning to not be retards who try and run from cops (and who fight it in court if it's legitimately a wrongful arrest or whatever) is the only option that will lead to a stable society.
The car wasn't stolen and the plates weren't hidden. But even if they had been, why wouldn't it better for the police to simply pursue the car, stop it, pull her out, and arrest her normally? This is done all the time. What about that causes society to be unstable? It's not a get out of jail free card. It's just dealing with the situation in a way that is unnecessarily harmful to the suspect.
Because car chases put the general public in danger. I'd much rather cops just blast people like this then let them put the public at risk.
Then they shouldn't do a car chase. They have many options. I think this is absurd trade off to make. The probability of someone getting hurt if they just arrest in a her a normal way is absolutely miniscule compared to the guaranteed harm of shooting her to death. Sure, if you put a sufficiently low value on the lives of people who are committing minor crimes, you can justify any level of police brutality, but that's not a reasonable basis on which to make an argument.
They were trying to arrest her in a normal way, she chose to flee instead. I really don't know how else to explain this to you. If we implemented your (and apparently many leftists') ideals for policing, the clearance rate for all crimes would drop somewhere between 90 to 99%. I'm not exaggerating here.
I'd be willing to let that happen, in exchange for citizens being allowed to blow away criminals without fear of prosecution. But I doubt that's a deal the left would be willing to make. So no, I'm not going to stand by and let the left undermine essential rules and tools for being able to maintain public order.
The US has already implemented this ideal. It's illegal to shoot suspects to stop them from fleeing. Police, including ICE, are told not to stand in front of moving vehicles and not to shoot at their drivers.
He didn't stand in front, he wasn't in front until she reversed. And cops are absolutely allowed to stand in front of parked vehicles to keep them from fleeing.
I already addressed this in my other comment, but cops absolutely can shoot fleeing suspects if they reasonably believe they pose a threat to the cop or others. A lady whipping her car around with reckless disregard for the agents in order to escape (and, to the officer who got hit, with seeming intent to hit him) it is absolutely a justified shoot.
There's no contradiction there. He got in front while it was reversing and then stopped in front of it.
The question is not about what they're allowed to do. It's about what they're instructed to do. Going against standard practice may be legal, but it is not reasonable, particularly if is aware of the dangers involved, as he would have to have been in order to believe his life was subsequently in danger.
I agree with the first sentence, but I totally disagree with the later. It is not enough for the person to in some vague sense pose a danger. Driving at a low speed near others doesn't come anywhere close to the level of danger required to kill the driver. The threat must be one of imminent and severe bodily harm.
This idea that the police are justified in ending someone's life based on the remotest possibility of someone getting hurt is something I cannot understand.
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