site banner
PaperclipPerfector  9mo ago (text post)   31395 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of July 24, 2023

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.

13
Top Bottom New Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Saying it's "NOT notable" is just flatly wrong, it is a notable fact of the case, even if it is technically true that a conspiracy doesn't require waiting until the act is carried out.

It's notable because, in an alternative universe where they did arrive at the park and marched as they had planned to and exactly in the manner they have been documented to march in every single other case, it would have been harder to allege a conspiracy to riot. So it's notable that the case is easier given that they did not have an opportunity to demonstrate that they were there to protest. It seems unlikely to me they would have been arrested for marching if they had made it that far, only stopping them before they could start gave the prosecution a case here.

You made a claim that the convictions are legally dubious. You based that on ostensibly "notable" evidence which is in actuality legally irrelevant.

an alternative universe where they did arrive at the park and marched as they had planned to and exactly in the manner they have been documented to march in every single other case, it would have been harder to allege a conspiracy to riot.

This amounts to a claim that, when police have evidence that people are conspiring to commit a crime, they must wait for them to actually commit the crime before arresting them, in case the police are mistaken. Have you ever advocated that in any other context, in which members of your team were not the ones being arrested?

  • -15

That's an extremely low bar, because nearly any human activity can be part of a plan to commit a crime. Visit a bank - maybe that's evidence you're casing it and plan to rob it. Go to work - maybe you're planning to sell drugs to someone you know at work. Buy a 2l soda bottle - maybe you're planning to turn it into a illegal silencer. Given the correct context, basically anything can be evidence of acts that haven't occurred yet. Maybe this is by design - certainly it would make the job of police and prosecutors a lot easier if they can convict based on a Minority Report-style supposition about what people 'intended' to do.

If you visit the bank, and stock your trunk with balaclavas and zip ties, and text your friends about how great it would be to have more cash on hand…maybe they should?

Jurors aren’t automatons. They are capable of judging intent, just as you are when you assume these protestors had the purest of intentions.

Visiting banks? Desiring money? Owning an extremely common item like cable ties? This sounds like it could cover literally millions of people.

No, it is not an extremely low bar. Because first there needs to be an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and its existence has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Then, there has to be an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Although circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the existence of an agreement, And here is what CA jury instructions say about circumstantial evidence:

before you may rely on circumstantial evidence to find the defendant guilty, you must be convinced that the only reasonable conclusion supported by the circumstantial evidence is that the defendant is guilty. If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence.

Someone visiting a bank might be casing the place, but that is hardly the only reasonable conclusion. So, your concern is misplaced.

The trouble here is that if you’re of the right frame of mind, or can be convinced as such by the prosecutor, almost anything that a person says can be taken as pointing to a the reasonable conclusion that there’s a conspiracy.

Me going to a bank, when I have money problems, and perhaps talking or texting about banks and money problems can be taken several ways. And especially if the crime in question hasn’t been committed at all, it’s really hard to prove they were going to commit the crime.

Aren't you ignoring this part: "If you can draw two or more reasonable conclusions from the circumstantial evidence, and one of those reasonable conclusions points to innocence and another to guilt, you must accept the one that points to innocence"?

And that would depend on the framing the prosecution uses and the quality of the jury. If you select properly, choosing people who aren’t able to tell the difference between vague discontent and an actual plan. It’s not at all clear that the usual retirees and unemployed who usually populate jury pools are going to make the fine distinctions that would allow that standard to actually hold. Especially given that the PF imagery and public statements would be off putting to most jurors. If the prosecutor is smart, when he’s talking about the flag poles, he’s going to make sure that the fascist symbols are clearly visible. Those kinds of things can be provocative in the minds of jurors.

To go to the bank example, if you and I visit a bank, and then I text you about money problems, and how a sudden windfall of money would solve my problems, and you say something like yeah that would be nice, in the hands of a good prosecutor, that’s motive right there. Now either one of us caught with common items that could have some use in a bank robbery are potentially in actual conspiracy. After all, why would an innocent person have these items in their trunk.

that’s motive right there.

Motive is not an element of conspiracy. An agreement to commit a crime is.

Now either one of us caught with common items that could have some use in a bank robbery are potentially in actual conspiracy.

I note that now you have added facts to your original hypothetical. What kinds of items? Guns and ski masks?

Look, are innocent people sometimes convicted of crimes due to an unfortunate accumulation of apparently incriminating circumstantial evidence? Yes. If that is all you mean to be arguing, I agree. But you seem to be saying that that is particularly common re conspiracy charges, and that people are convicted of conspiracy based on ridiculously ephemeral evidence. Where is your evidence for that?

You made a claim that the convictions are legally dubious.

They are legally dubious because the evidence is that they were going to protest in the exact same way they have protested in many other cases with the exact same uniform, shields, flag poles... I didn't say the arrests were dubious because police have to wait for a crime to happen before making an arrest. You are responding to an argument nobody has made.

This amounts to a claim that, when police have evidence that people are conspiring to commit a crime, they must wait for them to actually commit the crime before arresting them, in case the police are mistaken

We are not talking about an arrest, we are at the point where it has supposedly been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they were conspiring to riot. I am saying it would have been harder to have made that case if they had started the march before being arrested.

I know exactly what PF was going to do when they got to the event. They were going to leave the U-haul, form a column with flags, march and chant and then leave. That's what they have done in every single case. They don't even let the rank-and-file talk or interact with counter-protestors during the march precisely for these reasons. Arresting them before they even started made the job of the prosecution much easier, that was my point.

If the situation had unfolded, the prosecution would have had a harder time making case.

I know exactly what PF was going to do when they got to the event.

No, you believe that. You don't know it. Note that the jury, which actually heard the evidence, found beyond a reasonable doubt that you are wrong. Perhaps a little humility is in order.

  • -16

They had written plans showing that this is what they were going to do. They've done many protests with the same U-haul, uniforms, and shields and that is exactly what they have done every time. There was no evidence presented that they planned to riot this time in contradiction with every single other protest they have done in the past few years. A jury can get things wrong, you know, especially if the prosecutors and courts are biased against a defendant.

Rousseau's attorney claims that one of the phones which was handed to the FBI (without anybody having seen a warrant apparently) contained footage of the dress rehearsal of the march the day before... you have written plans showing an organized protest, a history of organized protest with the exact same uniform and materials, potential footage of the dress rehearsal of an organized protest... yes, I can say I know they they were not planning to riot and the jury got it wrong.

There was no evidence presented that they planned to riot

So, you have read the trial transcript? Can you provide a link?

A jury can get things wrong,

Yes, but a jury that has seen all the evidence is much more likely to be right than some guy on the internet who hasn't, especially when that person has an obvious bias.

  • -16

Yes, but a jury that has seen all the evidence is much more likely to be right than some guy on the internet who hasn't, especially when that person has an obvious bias.

Wasn't part of the controversy the seizing of the phones? Doesn't look like your theory of juries applies to this case at all.

Why not? It’s not like SS has the phones, either.

The defense wanted to make the seizure into a controversy, claiming that one of the phones was very cool annd very exculpatory. Since the only information we’ve been given is that one brief, we can’t assess whether that’s plausible. But the jury could.

it appears that the footage was entered as evidence but not shown to the Jury, from the link in the OP

We have previously reported on how the groups cell phones were given to the FBI by Coeur d’Alene Police, pursuant to a Federal Warrant that has not yet been seen by the Police, the defendants, the Judges in the case, and has not been entered into any court records.

The group’s leader, Thomas Rousseau, has alleged in a motion that those phones contain exculpatory evidence showing a “dress rehearsal from the day before” as well as body cam recordings from the day of the arrest.

The Judge granted Rousseau’s motion to compel.

In a video posted on the groups’ social media account 5 days after their arrest, some of that bodycam video is shown. According to notes taken by Casey Whalen during the trial, that footage was admitted into evidence, but not shown to the jury.

According to the Idaho Tribune, which was OP's original source:

We have previously reported on how the groups cell phones were given to the FBI by Coeur d’Alene Police, pursuant to a Federal Warrant that has not yet been seen by the Police, the defendants, the Judges in the case, and has not been entered into any court records.

The group’s leader, Thomas Rousseau, has alleged in a motion that those phones contain exculpatory evidence showing a “dress rehearsal from the day before” as well as body cam recordings from the day of the arrest.

The Judge granted Rousseau’s motion to compel.

that footage was admitted into evidence, but not shown to the jury

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats