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 -
I think any chance of a criminal conviction is basically zero especially since I believe only the feds can charge.
While it was a bad shoot the current theory is his gun fired on its own. If be bought a cheap gun that malfunctioned and fired on its own then maybe he doesn’t have a civil claim. Obviously the cops are allowed to return fire. If his defective gun that he provided did the first shot then it was seem like liability is back on him. It’s reasonable for an officer to assume they are being shot at when they hear a shot.
This is basically the same as the left claiming Charlie Kirk's shooter was a Groyper/MAGA/Right and it is similarly embarrassing how persistent this theory is in right leaning spaces. Striking, really
I'm sure it'll be conclusively proven/disproven sooner or later. Has anybody involved categorically denied it happening?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The state can still charge. The defendant can remove the case to Federal court, but the state would still be prosecuting,. just with a Federal judge and Federal jury. The advantage is that the judge would theoretically be more neutral and the jury would be drawn from a larger geographic area, but this is more of a consolation prize than anything . For instance, there would be a better argument for change of venire with a Hennepin County jury than with a jury that would be drawn from the entire district.
the state can charge but there is a problem with the federalis claiming the 'crime' was part of his job and then there is a claim to federal supermacy
Yeah, they can do that, but it's an argument and it might not win. The issue is that if he wanted to make that argument he'd have to surrender to Minnesota authorities and potentially spend a long time in prison while he waits for a hearing, at which point the judge might reject the argument. If he wants to remove the case to Federal court he'd have to file that motion and wait for the case to get on a trial calendar before he could even file the immunity motion.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
To my knowledge, the evidence that his gun fired on its own consists of:
From what I've seen, the latter point is very shaky, and is very pointedly not a claim the agency has made, to my knowledge. Digital video of this sort is not good at capturing gun mechanics at long range, poor lighting and in a confused environment. This same problem came up with the Mangioni shooting when people claimed the gun was a station-six or "welrod", as opposed to a semi-auto malfunctioning because it wasn't set up to work with a suppressor properly.
Yes the gun fired itself narrative seems to be weakening. A civil settlement though I’m not sure on. I am about 50-50 that this was suicide by ICE. I would put it at 20% chance he would have shot ICE if he had not been disarmed as the video seems to show him reaching where his gun would have been.
It’s a bad shoot in that when the shot was taken he was not a threat. But if you do his behavior 100 times you probably end up shot twice. Pay out in those situations creates a bad precedent.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link