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 -
Ex-Uvalde Officer Found Not Guilty of Endangering Children in Mass Shooting (NYT link, worked for me without an account)
My immediate thought, having read about prosecutions of police officers before, was that they found the special prosecutor version of Ralph Wiggums to ensure an acquittal. However, Bill Turner appears to have been the elected DA for Brazos County from 1983-2013, so it's hard to say. Many elected DAs have little trial experience and can be ineffective compared to a regular assistant DA who grinds 4-10+ trials per year, but maybe he's been getting some trial experience since 2013.
It's an interesting disparity that many people have commented on before: officers receive all kinds of "training and experience" (as they will brag about ad nauseum when testifying or in a pre-trial interview), but when it really counts and they fail to make effective use of that training and experience, it won't be held against them. They will instead be given infinite benefit of the doubt, as can be seen when officers are sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuits (heavily slanted law review article, but it correctly describes the reality of trying to sue for excessive force violations).
It takes a few minutes, but it's not hard to find examples of people with no training or experience engaging a mass shooter. Or officers who did so when they were off-duty: example 1, example 2.[1]
It seems to be one more piece of the overall modern American problem of failing to hold people accountable for high-profile failures because they had the correct credentials and merit badges. It's the brain on bureaucracy that 100ProofTollBooth notes below. "So-and-so had the correct credentials and followed the correct procedures, therefore no one is to blame for this terrible outcome." And then they might not even be held accountable when they don't follow those procedures, like here.
If
the rule you followedall the training and experience brought you to this, of what use was all that training?[1]Incidentally, this one is a fine example of wikipedia's slant on defensive use of arms. If you track down the shooter's post-arrest interview, he says he dropped his gun because he saw armed people approaching him, but wiki presents some witness statements to try to make it sound like he dropped his guns and the guys approaching with guns played no role in stopping the shooting.
Shout-out to the Nashville officers - Jeffrey Mathes, Rex Engelbert, Michael Collazo, Ryan Cagle, and Zachary Plese - who were true heroes. They went in without hesitation, clearly ready to stop the shooter or die trying, and they earned the Medal of Valor for it. The body-cam footage is amazing. The way Mathes enters is exactly the kind of bravery all men should aspire to. But that's kind of the thing, isn't it? Is the binary really criminal or national hero?
That doesn't seem quite right to me. When someone is given the chance to be a hero and doesn't take it, they should feel deep shame. If it's part of their job, they should be removed from positions that expose them to situations requiring valor, or they should lose their job altogether. But convicting them of a crime seems too far. With this though, if being a hero is not the expectation you are not treated as a hero for just having the job. I have similar feelings about "public-servants".
No, this guy was a police officer. If he didn't want to risk his life in that situation he shouldn't have become a cop- there's tons of other careers available. Notably, they don't involve carrying guns.
No, it should never be a crime to fail to act. Otherwise would be literal slavery, simple as. Justify your knee-jerk vengeful reaction to dead children all you want. Yes conscription is wrong too.
I don't care how much training he had. Don't care that he was on premises. I could have training myself. I could have been passing by myself. Don't care who was signing his paychecks.
It should never be a crime to not act.
An air traffic controller who fails to stop two planes from colliding will merely have failed to act.
A teacher who keeps his mouth shut about the sexual abuse of a kid merely fails to act.
A doctor who does not render assistance merely fails to act.
A lifeguard who falls asleep and lets a kid drown merely fails to act.
A truck driver who fails to hit the brakes when someone is standing in front of him merely fails to act.
In Germany, we have a general duty to rescue. If on my way home, I see a car crashed into a tree, and decide that I will not miss the start of the Tatort for some stranger, I could go to prison for up to a year for that. I can report that I do not feel very enslaved by that rule.
should be fired and subject to penalties that were articulated and agreed to beforehand, not dragged to prison and killed if he resists being dragged to prison.
Etc.
Driving a truck is not inaction, come now. This isn't hard.
My brother let me stop you right there. German law is not the standard for morality. I could take rhetorical cheapshots and point to its history of laws. Or I could point to the heresy laws that are on its books now.
Okay, so. Where are the goalposts going now? May I suggest attacking my use of the word "slavery"?
Come on. Two (small!!1) World Wars, one reference-class-defining genocide and now we are the bad guys forever?! Most of us were not even born back then, and the ones who were had absolutely no idea what that guy and a handful of his followers were (allegedly!) doing, should we be really blaming a whole people for a few bad actors, etc.
(I jest. As a left-leaning German, I am perfectly fine with Germany firstly being known for being crazy genocidal for the next 10 billion years or so. I would slightly prefer for us to be known for having been crazy genocidal but become civilized (and strongly prefer for that distinction to continue to hold, naturally), but I will take what I can get.)
Nasty old § 166 (warning: Kraut WP), yes. Some 15 convictions a year, apparently. Should we get rid of it? Totally. Does it mean that German law, or the French/Continental tradition of law in general, is ipso facto not a standard for civilized people and not worth more moral regard than the mutilation rites of some cannibal tribe? I think not.
Physically speaking, it is. Well, not going up to speed. But if you let go of the gas once you see the kid, you should be in the clear. In your frame of reference, you are at rest, and the kid is recklessly approaching you at 100km/h. Not applying any force and having your truck follow Newton's first law of motion seems like a textbook example of inaction.
The thing is, society restricts the use of trucks. Once you have started up a truck, you are obliged to take further action to keep it from harming bystanders, a process known as driving. While driving, you can and will go to prison for mere omissions of action.
Likewise, there is a widespread understanding that ending up in charge of a baby (either through your or your partner giving birth to one and not giving it up for adoption or through adopting one) will force you to take some actions on pain of imprisonment. "Oh, I simply did not feed her, can't punish me for not doing something" will not convince anyone.
Or in countries which do have a draft (which includes god's own country, in theory), you can take a young man and make him perform all sorts of dangerous and morally questionable actions on pain of imprisonment. (I'm not personally a fan of that one, but it is widespread.)
Or consider the Kindergarden teacher who goes on record "yes, I saw Kevin play with a fork in the power socket, but to be honest he was the single most annoying kid in the class, so I merely watched and made sure that none of the other kids were touching him. Smelled terrible, though. Anyhow, good thing we don't punish omissions, right?"
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To steelman this position - there are certain situations (which bear a passing resemblance to this one) in which failing to act (and actively restraining others from doing so) could be the right decision. For example, in a situation where someone has rigged the school with lethal traps, not entering (and preventing parents from entering) would be the right decision, even if you can hear him actively executing the children within. Likewise, a situation where the shooter has hostages (and is being negotiated with) is a fairly well known one, and one where it would make sense to keep bystanders away even when it seems like the cops are doing nothing. Likewise, a situation where it is guaranteed lethal or nearly so to enter (I'm thinking the hallways flooded with a poison gas or similar) would also justify not acting. I'd also say that a situation that falls far outside normal training and expectations is one in which the cops should be given the benefit of the doubt on not acting (like, hypothetically, if sorcerers took children hostage, I don't expect police to throw their lives away against literal magic that they have no idea how to handle).
I think the problem here is that this situation doesn't come close to falling into those buckets - it's a situation we expect cops to handle routinely (aka, armed person attempting to threaten harm to innocents). And the solution of firing them and giving them a dishonourable discharge feels inadequate to the magnitude of the action. So in addition to feeling like they had a gross dereliction of duty, we also feel like they betrayed the societal covenant of "you are given the right to use violence, but in exchange you must protect us."
And more personally, I know that this would never be respected in any other situation; if I'm a nuclear plant engineer, and I decide to not check up on the error code that I'm seeing and the plant explodes causing a second Chernobyl, there is no chance in hell that I'm getting away with just a firing. If I also lock the error manual away and physically restrain my coworkers from checking on it, I'd be lucky to get away without treason charges, let alone life in prison/the death penalty.
More options
Context Copy link
I have to admire the jump straight to reductio ad absurdum when I professed to believe in any kind of principle at all.
You all have been great sports, truly. I know I’m coming off as aggressive but I truly don’t know how to argue any other way. I love you all and I love this place!
Well yeah, it's a bad principle. Dereliction of duty should be punished.
“Slavery is okay if I really care about what should be done” is not an acceptable substitute for my principle.
The bar is finding where the actor in question agreed affirmatively to imprisonment if he fails to act to a certain standard. That will change my mind!
You throw around the word “duty,” so it shouldn’t be hard to find terms of the duty.
I think you're using the word "slavery" in a nonstandard way. The fact that someone will be punished for inaction doesn't imply that they are therefore owned by another individual.
I don't understand why you're demanding that an actor must affirmatively agree to do something in order to face punishment for failing to do so. This isn't how we treat crimes of commission ("well we found Bob standing over Carol's corpse holding a bloody knife – but he never explicitly agreed not to murder anyone, so legally our hands are tied"), so why should it be the case for crimes of omission? This sounds like some sovereign citizen nonsense: the laws of the country in which you reside apply to you, whether you approve of them or not.
If Alice knows that Bob is planning to kill Carol and does nothing to prevent it (say, reporting him to the police), that obviously implies that Carol's murder could have been prevented had Alice acted. The fact that she didn't personally stab Carol doesn't make her any less party to the crime. The fact that she never explicitly agreed to report any instances in which she had foreknowledge of a murder doesn't either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
While I agree with you on most of your scenarios that there should be repercussions, there is a distinction between crime and legal repercussions (which could be civil lawsuits).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
There exists zero jurisdictions in which it is a crime to not be a police officer. Police officers are not drafted. Being forced to do your job, that you volunteered to do and get paid to do, isn't slavery.
Once you've signed up to do certain jobs, not doing those jobs should certainly be criminal. If you call 911 and the EMTs show up just to watch you die, I'd certainly be in favor of a legal regime that sees them charged with something.
More options
Context Copy link
UCMJ Article 99: Misbehavior Before The Enemy
Is a thing.
Also
The 15-year-old German girl who knew the Uvalde shooter's plan and failed to alert the authorities was prosecuted for her inaction. She was found guilty of "failing to report planned crimes," she was issued a warning and required to undergo "educational measures".
That's a neat law but it's not a rebuttal. I'm not like some lawyers here to spin a mile-long yarn about how incredibly nuanced I find this whole situation. I now this is nails on a chalkboard to those who love hair-splitting and reading 300-page pdfs to point out a single contradiction, but my views on this are relatively simple and they don't rely on laws.
Clearly.
Your views seem to be ought rather than is, as clearly there are at least some situations where failure to act is a crime.
Your claim that this is literal slavery seems a bit thin on evidence.
The 'payment' received making this not slavery in this incident is the literal salary collected by the officer and the participation in online social media and instant messages with strangers by the German girl. Both had other options. Not being a cop, not talking to weirdos on the internet. Both of those come with potential obligations to act.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The military has dereliction of duty - if you refuse to perform your duty or are willfully negligent, that's a UCMJ charge. I think you could apply a similar argument to police. This is not slavery or conscription. A soldier who voluntarily signs up for the military, knowing what it entails, can do a significant amount of harm by simply refusing to do their job in a critical moment. The time to make that call is before enlisting, not months or years later when lives are on the line. By commiting to performing an action and then intentionally failing to perform it in a way that cases harm, that creates liability, potentially criminal liability.
Another good example is fraud. If you pay someone $10k to fix your roof, and two weeks later they "refuse to act" and keep the money, that's a crime. This case is less black and white obviously, but police officers receive pay and benefits in excess of comparable jobs because of the potential danger. Police officers who defect on this social contract should be punished accordingly, whether that's administratively or through criminal charges in the most extreme cases.
You and Walruz make a good point.
I obviously don’t believe that if a man rips open another’s throat and puts his hands in his pockets to watch him bleed and insists that he’s being prosecuted for “doing nothing,” that he’s innocent, but the thing is he wouldn’t be prosecuted for the nothing, but the ripping.
So your position must be that police officers are conscripting themselves to battle whenever they agree to join the force. That’s a defendable position but it’s not one I think I agree with.
They’re being paid to respond first, but they don’t hold moral powers beyond civilians. They can only use force if it’s confirmed ex post that it was a valid arrest. They can only use deadly force in fear of grievous harm to them. These also hold for civilians (even if judges will be much harsher about valid arrests). The only difference is that they’re compensated and dedicated actors to these functions. But I don’t think that rises to a solemn covenant to do battle on pains of imprisonment.
I would change my mind if you could find some affirmative vow among the force agreeing to consequences if they fail to act in some situation. All I know of is an oath to the law.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So... abolish "criminal neglect" as a concept?
Also does the combination of refusing to act, while also forcefully preventing others from acting not strike you as deeply perverted?
Central examples of criminal neglect usually refer to reckless driving or a doctor incompetently misdiagnosing a patient to catastrophic effect. Would you convict the doctor in the next room over who could have prevented it by eavesdropping and intervening?
What? I'm unfamiliar with the particulars of the Uvalde shooting response. Did he turn his gun on his colleagues and order them to stop? If he did something like that, shouldn't that have been more central to our discussion here, and not job expectations?
Central examples of criminal neglect are parents refusing to feed or otherwise take care of their children, or generally speaking - people refusing to take care of others who are under their custody. You could probably also find examples of neglecting the maintenance of buildings and machines being criminal.
Uh... then maybe lower the levels of confidence with which you are speaking?
It wasn't just him, the entire police force deployed to the location was forcefully preventing parents from entering the school to save their children. Some of the parents were armed, so they could have taken on the shooter.
Though I think one officer who wanted to enter was also prevented from doing so.
As a reminder, here's the comment I responded to originally. It in turn is responding to "Is the binary really criminal or national hero?" and "But convicting them of a crime seems too far."
I don't think it's terribly productive to add to the tragedy of a passed child by dragging the parents into prison, no. They've been punished enough. There's one example that comes to mind where the parents declined medical interventions for their sick child, who died. The state decided that children are actually the state's, and not the parents', and the state disagreed with that child-rearing decision, so off to prison. Yes I disagree with that. Yes I disagree with "turn this wrench or you come with us downtown."
Child handcuffed to her bed and starving to death? Sure send the boys in to liberate her. Is handcuffing inaction?
It's not like I'm opposed to other solutions or repercussions. I just think bringing the physical force of the law to bear on those who decline to do things is obviously wrong.
Did the parents have legal access to the property? If they did, did the police batter the parents to keep them out? If they did, were battery charges brought against any police? If there were, I don't think my statements about inaction would apply. Do you agree?
It's not much of a tragedy if they do it knowingly, and it's productive to deter other parents from acting the same way.
How about a child that's simply too young to leave on their own? Or even one that leaves, but just ends up being more abused by people they encounter on the streets?
And I'm saying you're obviously wrong. There are cases were people are obligated to act, under penalty of law, that's a good thing, and this case should obviously be included.
The access not being legal just confirms my point that the state was preventing parents from entering. In itself that's not wrong, but in doing so, the state assumes responsibility for what happened in the area they restricted. This is exactly what creates the obligation for the police to act against the shooter.
Yes, they were tackled, handcuffed, and pepper-sprayed.
I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Why would they? The police are generally allowed to batter uncooperative people in order to detain them.
I don't. I think you these questions are completely irrelevant to what you said about inaction.
Your comment was so extreme that whatever you responded to doesn't really matter. Again, you said: "It should never be a crime to not act", twice.
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