site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   32030 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 Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

It's notable here that the members were arrested on their way to protest, they did not even have the opportunity to leave the vehicle.

I am not familiar with the specifics of this case, but it is important to note that this is NOT notable. in Idaho, as is the norm:

"[A] conspiracy is established upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that there is an agreement between two or more individuals to accomplish an illegal objective, coupled with one or more overt acts in the furtherance of the illegal purpose. . . ." State v. Smith, 161 Idaho 782, 787, 391 P.3d 1252, 1257 (2017) (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Garcia, 102 Idaho 378, 384, 630 P.2d 665, 671 (1981)), reh'g denied (Apr. 20, 2017). Thus, an overt act must be (1) committed by one of the coconspirators (i.e., someone who is a party to the agreement) and (2) the act must be done in furtherance of the illegal purpose.

State v. Medina, 447 P. 3d 949 (Idaho: Supreme Court 2019).

Hence, IF they agreed to riot, then the crime was complete the moment that anyone committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. That includes acquiring weapons, or a car, or many other acts. See State v. Averett, 136 P. 3d 350 (Idaho Court of Appeals 2006) ["In State v. Brown, 113 Idaho 480, 745 P.2d 1101 (Ct.App.1987), this Court stated that, "the overt act requirement is satisfied by slight evidence," and that the "act in furtherance of the conspiracy need not itself be criminal." Brown, 113 Idaho at 493, 745 P.2d at 1114. It is not required that there be a direct connection between the overt act of legally purchasing items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine and the criminal act of producing methamphetamine. The legal act of purchasing items necessary for the manufacture of the methamphetamine is sufficient to establish an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy."].

Hence, it does matter that, as you note, "it is not illegal to have a shield."

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?

  • -17

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.

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.

  • -10

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?

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