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 -
A black man who was caught on video beating and trying to shoot a female sheriff's deputy in California was just found not guilty of attempted murder and assaulting a peace officer. He was found guilty of "negligent discharge of a firearm". She survived because the gun jammed when he pointed it at her and pulled the trigger.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/california-man-who-pummeled-shot-at-female-deputy-found-not-guilty-despite-video-of-attack
It reminds me of the thread a few days ago about black defendants being acquitted of murdering white victims. The most common sentiment in the comments was that a list of examples isn't enough to prove a trend. I think that's fair but also I don't see how you could ever collect enough data on this to ever prove bias conclusively (are black defendants acquitted because juries are racist against whites or are innocent black people charged by racist DAs?). It's also possible that he was acquitted because of anti-police sentiment instead of anti-white. I think there's no chance he was factually innocent because it was caught on video, this is jury nullification of some sort.
It's a dangerous trend if this becomes more common. I don't see how we can have both law and order and strong constitutional protections for defendants if juries side with violent criminals over law enforcement.
Let's check and see if there is any non-outrageous explanation for this. Skimming some news articles available it looks like the legal argument made was that her initial detention of him was illegal and so their ensuing struggle was self-defense. The Deputy says his own mother called the cops on him and was holding a knife when the Deputy arrived, leading the deputy to assume the schizophrenic man was a violent threat so she put his hands behind his back and a struggle ensued.
The video opens with them already struggling and her gun is in her hand. The gun fires twice while they're struggling with it then he gets it and she runs out of frame, he fires in the direction she ran out of frame. The defense lawyer says they found the bullet hole from that shot in a nearby garage door and it was in a different direction from the bush she says she ran to for cover. It's possible she changed direction once she was off camera and he wasn't aiming at her.
If they show he's not aiming at her with forensics, and we only have her testimony that he fired the gun and it jammed I can see the jury acquitting him of attempted murder. The jury hung on the charges of resisting arrest, battery against an officer, and removing her firearm. I guess the defense lawyer convinced at least one member of the jury that the initial detention was unlawful. I wouldn't have guessed that you can legally resist unlawful detention and I'd be curious if anyone with legal expertise wants to comment on that.
I think the solution is pretty simple here: if you're white and the suspect is black, simply do not go. Announce you see some other crime in progress (e.g. littering, jay walking, etc.) and are unable to respond. There is no upside for the cop and only potential downside. I'd quit before I'd go to confront someone I'm not legally able to arrest.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link