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 -
Yes. Foster had his rifle shouldered with both hands on it. While the barrel was pointed downward (not straight down, but at an angle), Perry in his car was actually below him... and in any case he could have raised the rifle and fired in an instant. Perry's car was also surrounded and being banged on by Foster's fellow travelers at the time. Perry was in reasonable fear for his life.
The social media evidence (concerning Perry saying he wanted to kill some other set of BLM protestors) was prejudicial and never should have been admitted. Perry obviously hated them, but that doesn't make him a murderer. Social media evidence from Foster indicating he carried his rifle in order to intimidate, and that he'd blocked streets before, were not admitted.
The claim that Perry "crashed" into the crowd is contradicted by the evidence.
The left never had that trust. The claim that the system is rigged in favor of the Man is a standard leftist one. Now, at least Abbott has finally realized that he doesn't need to act as if institutions controlled by his enemies are trustworthy.
Edit: Apparently they can STILL get him. He still has to face a misdemeanor deadly conduct charge. You'd expect this would be double jeopardy (since the charges stem from the same act), but I think we'll find the courts decide that the pardon wipes away the original jeopardy.
The evidence against Perry was prejudicial, but that's not the end of the analysis. All evidence is prejudicial to some degree. The question is whether the prejudicial nature is outweighed by the probative value, and it was because it was clearly related to motive. The argument wasn't that it was evidence that Perry was a bad dude but that he specifically contemplated the actions which he was accused of. The evidence of Foster's prior actions wasn't admitted because it would only be relevant if Perry was aware of it at the time of the incident, and there's no evidence that he had seen those posts. Even then I don't know if it would be admissible because simply blocking a street isn't a deadly threat, and intent to intimidate doesn't necessarily mean intent to injure, but since Perry didn't see the posts, we don't need to go that far with the analysis.
Which those posts did not. He said he might have to kill a few people who were rioting outside his apartment, and he might have to go to Dallas to shoot looters. Foster wasn't one of the people rioting outside his apartment, nor was he a looter, nor was the group he in actually looting. The situations are somewhat similar but don't show that Perry specifically contemplated the actions he was accused of.
Perry didn't need to see the posts; he only needed to evaluate Foster's intentions. And what Perry's evaluation of those intentions was and whether they were reasonable depends on how Foster was acting, which in turn depends on his intentions, which those posts were evidence of. "Was Foster trying to put Perry in fear of his life or of bodily injury?" is a relevant question. It is certainly reasonable to have a standard where this is too indirect to be considered admissible.... but not if you're allowing Perry's posts.
More options
Context Copy link
Intent to intimidate may not imply an intent to injure, but it does imply an intent to get other people think that you have an intent to injure, or else they'll call your bluff and not be intimidated. That is, an intent to intimidate but not injure should, from the perspective of a victim, look the same as an intent to intimidate and injure.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Greg Abbott figured that out a while ago. He’s also trying to take over the administration of Travis county(where it took place), although it’ll be a while before he gets it done.
Does the governor have the right to dismiss any district attorney (as in NY)?
No, it takes a baroque process. Texas has the least powerful executive in the country by actual de jure powers and the state government is very, very procedural and bureaucratic by design.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The issue with this is Perry probably did just see the chance and killed him for fun. It’s just that the victim was shitting on the commons to an extent that he opened the door for someone to kill him because he didn’t like the victim.
Perry likely knew that the victim was cosplaying revolutionary and wasn’t going to execute him at any high non-neglible probability.
In ordinary life when someone exposes themselves that you can do something bad to them and get away with it we usually choose not to do something bad to them. In this case the victim broke public trust to an extent that people are less forgiving. He paid the asshole tax.
He was driving on the road legally at low speed. his car was blocked by protesters barricading the road illegally, who then mobbed his car, while one of their number, armed with a rifle, advanced on him with the rifle raised. In that situation, how does one disambiguate "seeing the chance and killing for fun" from "legitimately fearing for one's life"?
Why do you consider this "likely"? Protestors had been making a habit of attacking motorists for quite some time at this point, if memory serves. Vehicles had been fired upon, and motorists lawlessly threatened with lethal force.
This argument applies even better to Foster as well, doesn't it? Perry "exposed himself" by driving on the road; Foster's fellow protesters illegally detained and harassed him, and Foster threatened him with deadly force by pointing a rifle at him. Why should we not consider Perry shooting him in self-defense to not be Foster paying the "asshole tax"?
I don’t think you can make a legal argument that it wasn’t self defense. But I do think reading the room would tell Perry that it was cosplay.
Do you have a source for vehicles being fired upon? I don’t know of any of these where they randomly killed some guy driving. Annoyed them yes. Delayed them yes.
I am referring to Foster as paying the asshole tax. You cosplay revolutionary, shit on the commons, and then probably actually pointed a gun at a person.
Alamosa, Colorado - June 4. Alamosa Attorney Charged With Attempted Murder After Shooting Man Driving Through Protest (https://denver.cbslocal.com/2020/06/15/alamosa-attorney-james-marshall-attempted-murder-shooting-danny-pruit-protest/) Video: https://youtube.com/watch?v=WviznA_clis
Provo, Utah — Jun 30, 2020. Police arrest 2 after man shot during Provo protest. Gunman shot driver, then hid weapon and continued to protest, Provo police say (https://www.deseret.com/utah/2020/6/30/21308526/gunman-shot-driver-then-hid-weapon-continued-protest-provo-police-say-blm) Video: https://streamable.com/e/2lpo4b Video (zoomed in and slowed): https://streamable.com/e/hsytix
Aurora, Colorado — July 25, 2020. Car drives through crowd, protester shot in Colorado (https://fox6now.com/2020/07/26/car-drives-through-crowd-protester-shot-in-colorado/) Video: https://streamable.com/e/1y8pbi
Never heard of any of these cases. And I am in right-wing spaces mostly.
The Provo case was discussed on the Motte. Somehow or another the shooter seems to have avoided a trial.
?He's set for a jury trial in 2025!? Nice problem to have if you're out on bail, but what the ever-living fuck.
There looks to have been some process stuff -- what looks like a pretty questionable police-tossed-my-evidence back and forth that took a several months, and a judge recusing because his brother-in-law turned out to be involved in analyzing the case -- but that's still nearly New York City levels of delay.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Side note for that last one, it was "protester shoots at car they were mobbing, hits other protester mobbing the car"
Clever bit of headline writing to make it sound like the driver did the shooting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
"The room" was a mob of protesters illegally blocking the road, swarming his vehicle and beating on the exterior while screaming at him, and then one of them advancing on him with a rifle raised in firing position. What part of that sounds like "cosplay"?
Armed "protesters" murdered a young black motorist and critically-injured his passenger under similar circumstances, roughly a month before this incident, and were allowed to escape without arrest or prosecution. Armed "protestors" in Georgia fired on a vehicle under similar circumstances a few weeks earlier, killing an eight-year-old black girl. Videos of protestors attacking motorists' vehicles and in some cases the motorists themselves were everywhere online. Likewise videos of protestors shooting up vehicles without hitting the occupants, or threatening motorists or counter-protestors with firearms.
...Ah, I misunderstood.
The prior incidents of protesters shooting at cars is all well and good, but they're only relevant if the defendant knew about them and they influenced his decision, and the only way to admit that evidence is if he testifies to it himself. While that evidence may have helped his case, that help almost certainly would have been outweighed by the fact that he'd have to testify and open himself up to cross examination, which almost never ends well.
It is obvious enough that having protestors surround your car is a threat to your life that nobody should be required to testify that they think it's a threat.
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