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.
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.
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."
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