site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  1yr ago (text post)   35390 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of April 3, 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.

12
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

On the Abbot pardon and I think he’s in a tough place. I kept finding articles like this:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/will-texas-governor-pardon-army-sergeant-sandbagged-soros-da-self-defense-shooting

I keep seeing this of evidence withheld in the grand jury. Probably true. But I kept noticing I never heard anything about the jury trial. Suddenly got around to doing some googling and came up with this:

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2023-04-07/might-have-to-kill-a-few-people/

He had some really bad texts about wanting to kill protestors and triggering self defense. The first article does seem like a gun was at a minimum partially raised against him. So looks to me like he at a minimum tried to find himself in that situation and then found an obliging gun toting person raising it at him.

Thoughts

  1. I don’t like overturning a jury verdict and especially since it was in Texas even though it was Austin I don’t think he got railroaded. And I’m saying it as someone who thinks Chauvin deserves a pardon.

  2. Kind of looks like mutual combat which Chicago actually declared on a case. Not sure if that law is in place in Texas but reading the statute in Texas for stand your ground you can’t provoke the other side before declaring self defense. So even then you would get an issue of whether his driving constituted provocation.

  3. It’s largely better when the government maintains a monopoly use of violence. This was not the case in 2020. A lot of these cases to me looks like the government abdicated its monopoly and created The Purge like situations where either said could claim mutual combat.

Even for my ideological enemies I feel it’s important to give them justice when wronged. I wouldn’t have hated a not guilty verdict on the grounds I can’t sort out the self defense claim. But from what I can see it looks like a reasonable decision.

How about this analogy for the situation?

A robber walks into a bank, shows a gun to the teller, and demands to be given money. (they don't actually point the gun at anyone, and later it's determined that the gun had the safety on and did not have a round chambered.)

A security guard sees the gun and shoots the robber. Earlier that day, they had posted to social media, "man, my job is so boring. I wish someone would try to rob the bank so I could shoot them".

Is the security guard guilty of murder?

The analogy fails. Foster was in a public space where he had every right to be. Texas is an open carry state, so he had every right to carry a rifle in public. The basis for Perry's self-defense argument is that Foster threatened him, but as far as I can tell the only evidence for that is Perry's claim (and which appears to be contradicted by other eyewitnesses).

There's a photo of Foster pointing an AK at Perry.

I've been looking around for this and unable to find anything. The jury apparently either didn't see this or didn't find it compelling. If you can link it to me, I'd appreciate it.

edit: the only picture I've been able to find, cited as "showing" Foster pointing a gun merely shows him holding a rifle in the vicinity of Perry's car. As I mentioned before, Texas is an open carry state. Foster was allowed to walk around carrying a rifle. Under such legal circumstances, simply approaching someone while carrying a gun can't reasonably considered a threat without creating insane outcomes (i.e. if we were to consider Perry justified in shooting Foster, we'd also have to consider Foster justified in shooting Perry if he had done so). Of course, this could have been avoided if they'd simply left their guns at home.

looking closer I think he's not actually pointing it in the photo, sorry it's quite dark and grainy.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1644518046784995331/photo/1

I don’t like overturning a jury verdict

Isn't it the whole point of the pardon power - to override the (presumed) excesses of the jury process?

whether his driving constituted provocation.

Driving on the public street open for driving? That'd be stretching "provocation" beyond any reasonable boundary. I didn't read the details so maybe he did some "come at me, bro" stuff beyond driving, and that'd make a difference. A vehicle can be used as a weapon no less than a gun can. But driving alone in a legal manner is not.

There’s a lot of obfuscation about this case - it’s quite simple.

  1. Did Perry have a right to drive on the street?

  2. Did Garrett Foster have a right to blockade a road with his friends and then detain people driving down that road who didn’t wish to be detained.

  3. Upon being detained, did Perry have justifiable belief that his detainers might use their firearms against him this allowing him to claim self-defense.

To help us decide- consider another scenario - Foster & friends stood outside Perry’s front door with a gun without permission and attempted to detain him as Perry walks out the door. Is Perry justified in defending himself?

Another scenario for consideration - Foster and friends attempt to detain the President on Pennsylvania Ave and point guns in his general direction - what would the Secret Service do in that situation?

Im trying to move convo to pardon power which I think is interesting. I don’t think anyone won on guilty or innocent but regardless the pardon power is interesting.

Well if you were detaining people by using said truck to block people in, then I think the people you’re attempting to detain have the right to ram the truck to escape the situation.

We disagree on whether Perry was intentionally driving into the crowd.

But you can't stand in the middle of the road and expect to avoid being hit by a car, I don't care if the car is there legally or not, and similarly you can't imprison a stranger, I don't care if they are in a car, it is illegal - so that's an initiated assault without any angle for self defence. So they transformed into violent criminals first by stepping into the road, and clearly he was afraid of the violent criminals detaining him, and responded in self defence.

I’ll shut this down because I read some. He apparently stopped for 6 seconds. There’s no evidence he was running people over. I agree with the point but there’s no evidence shooter rammed people.

A lot of case discussion. I’m honestly bored with that. But there’s a few other issues.

  1. I think I’ve established there’s a plausible chance this guy was guilty. Maybe not reasonable doubt. Abbott is facing a lot of political pressure to overturn it. But 12 in Texas said he’s guilty.

  2. Protestors are annoying. If you convict one who killed a protestor then they will feel like they have immunity to be annoying or worse loot and arson. Is it better to just pardon a killer so the protestors don’t come out?

Re #2 I don't think pardon or imprisonment is likely to play a large role in protestors decision theory. Small probability of extreme punishments generally don't do much to dissuade, and it's not like no one's ever died or been injured at a protest before.

I think I’ve established there’s a plausible chance this guy was guilty.

Wow. We've lowered the standards of criminal conviction here down from "guilty beyond reasonable doubt" to NOT "not-guilty beyond reasonable doubt".

On 1) Texas has very limited amounts of control over local DA’s(who are elected locally), so ‘he got railroaded because blue prosecutor’ is entirely possible.

I agree on the DA. But he got 12 bad jurors? Like Chauvin had BLM acti it’s on his jury. I don’t think he had those people as the dominant force in his jury.

Austin is very blue. They get tribal when things get politicized.

Seems to me there is a difference between “looking for an excuse” and creating the situation. That is, if you instigate a fight and then use deadly force you’re fucked. If on the other hand you wander around a BLM riot wearing a MAGA hat you (unless the city issued some stay at home order) had every legal right to be there and if someone physically attacks you in a way that puts your life in danger can use deadly force.

The second isn’t advisable (optics are bad and you could easily die yourself). But I do think there is a legal difference.

There is definitely a legal difference in actively provoking a fight. And if there isn't, there should be. Counter-protesting is protected speech. Speech isn't really protected if doing so negates your basic rights.

There is. All the statutes I’ve seen allow an aggressor to regain his right to self defense after he effects a retreat, though.

Yes, that's generally true.

The problem in this case for “looking for an excuse” which is legal is you better have damn good video evidence. As is we don’t know if the victim didn’t point the gun at him, larped a bit with his gun, or really threatens him with it.

As is we don’t know if the victim didn’t point the gun at him, larped a bit with his gun, or really threatens him with it.

This is called “reasonable doubt” and means that the defendant should be found not guilty.

If that’s the standard then I’d probably lean not guilty.

But from the evidence I think there’s a 50% chance or somewhat more he murdered this guy because he wanted to.

Once more, there is a difference between “hoping to be in a situation where one can use deadly force” and “provoking”.

The first is still self defense.

Also, there is a difference between talking tough to buddies and wanting to go murdering. This guy wasn’t randomly driving around. He was ubering. He had just dropped off a fare. Using his “shit talking” to prove his state of mind at the particular moment is a leap.

Agree. After posting this then reading more. Here’s my gut feeling for what happened.

The victim raised his gun a little and talked a little tough. The shooter probably didn’t actually fear for his life but saw the opportunity to shoot and claim self defense. The victim may have actually fully pointed his gun at the shooter.

I think either legally or in the eyes of god this guy did murder someone without an excuse but legally might be not guilty.

I just have a feeling this guy was shooting the second he thought he had a legal right to as oppose to not wanting to shoot.

I said in my initial thing a lot of the problems here is the state abdicating their monopoly on violence.

The victim raised his gun a little and talked a little tough. The shooter probably didn’t actually fear for his life but saw the opportunity to shoot and claim self defense. The victim may have actually fully pointed his gun at the shooter.

You're now at the point that your "gut feeling" says that a guy having a rifle pointed at him by a hostile person is not in fear for his life. I think your gut needs a check.

Yet the burden of proof isn’t on the defendant. If the only video evidence we have is someone pointing a gun at him, I’m at least having responsible doubt…

Actually it is or it’s 50-50 depending how you read these Under Texas law, you need to prove the following elements to successfully claim self-defense:

You used an adequate amount of force.

You reasonably believed that the use of force was immediately necessary.

You did not provoke the other person.

You were not attempting to commit a crime when using force.

I think for this case he had to reasonably believe a use of force is necessary. I’m not sure how that compares to reasonable doubt of guilt.

No, in Texas, as in pretty much every state, once the defendant has produced some evidence that he acted in self-defense, the prosecution has the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he did not act in self-defense. Saxton v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910 (Tx Ct of Crim App, 1991); Hernandez v. State, 804 S.W.2d 910, 910 (Tx Ct of App, 2020).

Then if that’s standard he’s not guilty but I still believe at a greater than 50% chance that this guy probably was wanting a chance to kill a protestor and took his chance.

"Hoping he would be the victim of an unjustified assault" doesn't make it into a justified assault.

It doesn't matter whether the assault was justified -- note that it is perfectly possible for both sides in a conflict to be acting in self-defense. That is, it is perfectly possible that both sides to honestly and reasonably believe that the other poses a risk of imminent danger. It doesn't matter whether the danger actually exists. And, if I am not actually in fear, it doesn't matter that a reasonable person would have been in fear, nor that the other person was acting unlawfully.

Then you would have qualified for the jury. But just going out where trouble happens hoping that trouble finds you isn't "provocation" according to the law.

Damn, this Army vs. Air Force rivalry is pretty hardcore.

It’s largely better when the government maintains a monopoly use of violence. This was not the case in 2020. A lot of these cases to me looks like the government abdicated its monopoly and created The Purge like situations where either said could claim mutual combat

cthulhu swimming left. It does have the feeling of government enabling and encouraging anarchy, then shortly thereafter enforcing anarcho-tyranny.

From the article:

The testimony confirming Perry's anger toward protesters came on the third day of the trial as prosecutors displayed text messages and social media comments showing that he thought about killing them. "I might have to kill a few people on my way to work, they are rioting outside my apartment complex," Perry wrote to a friend in June of 2020. "I might go to Dallas to shoot looters," he wrote on another occasion. Perry also encouraged violence in a variety of social media posts.

Bad opsec for his sake, but an understandable and even based sentiment.

If we'll be operating under Purge-rules, might as well orient oneself under Purge-rules.

Ah, hell. I hadn't heard about this. Either a tragedy or an outrage, not sure which.

Can a pardon be issued before the trial is actually complete? He was indicted, not convicted, on murder and assault charges, and the trial may well reveal any or all of that alleged exculpatory evidence. Watching the video, there's plenty of ambiguity. I don't want to jump to conclusions based off two Twitter clips and two sets of media spin, and neither should the Board.

As a side note--there's some dark humor in juxtaposing these claims about Soros DAs with the claims downthread.

Yeah, I don’t see it as a “gotcha” so much as a footnote. The problem is that the initial complaints don’t bother including the footnote because their audience already knows what Soros is supposed to represent.

Can a pardon be issued before the trial is actually complete?

I guess Texas could have some real weird rule, but generally yes. You're usually pardoned for crimes committed, not to overturn the conviction.

It’s only like a day old. You probably heard about it back then.

So there’s also video of the guy killed with AK saying the people that hate them are too much of a pussy to do anything. So both sides have statements making them look guilty.

I guess the car was stopped for 6.2 seconds so maybe that’s long enough for him not to have “provocation issues”. And tough guy with AK certainly could have raised it.

It does not not make him look good, but the evidence still suggests his life was in danger and he acted in self defense. It's the same thing as the Rittenhouse case or George Zimmerman. Putting oneself into danger or risk taking behavior does not invalidate the self defense argument.

This isn't the same as the Rittenhouse case, at all. It amazes me that the misinformation still floats around...

part of the problem is that had I argued the opposite, then I'd have people tell me it is like the Rittenhouse case. TBH I don't care that much anyway, given I strongly dislike BLM I hope he is pardoned, the contravening details or facts are otherwise irrelevant to me

part of the problem is that had I argued the opposite, then I'd have people tell me it is like the Rittenhouse case

So it's OK to use a bad example (pulling from misinformation) because other people would of?

Am I understanding you correctly?

(sorry for the late response)

It’s both correct? One key difference is Rittenhouse clearly retreated. And then after the first shot you had mutual combat where honestly depending who died both sides could claim plausible self defense.

But the same in that it’s late at night. Armed people on both sides who don’t trust each other. Both cases had behavior I guess I would describe as wilding behavior so it’s tough to tell what’s a threat. Kenosha I would describe a lot of the action terroristic/violent (burning buildings). Both took place where normal people had legitimate interest in the area. The Uber driver apparently had dropped off a passenger. Kenosha residents had their public square and often businesses being attacked.

I think one big difference is in Kenosha the guy who initiated with Rittenhouse was not a good guy and was attacking him. This incident I think the victim was more of a larper walking around with a rifle acting tough.

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm#C

9.31.2

Did not provoke the person whom the force was used

So I think the case comes down to did he knowingly try to provoke the encounter. Did he speed into the crowd too fast. And where his prior texts of talking about triggering an encounter gives a lot of information on his state of mind.

It's hard to say, which is why this is so hotly contested still.

He drove his car into the crowd at 10mph, but slowed down, stopping and then was approached by Garrett Foster, who may have raised his gun at him just 18 inches from the driver side window. Being an Uber driver, his motive could have been he was in a hurry.

as someone on twitter notes:

How could he have known the gun wasn't loaded or the safety was on? It doesn't matter to the legal analysis. What matters is if the person using self defense had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury. The object of that fear doesn't actually need to be a real threat.

I looked into it more. I think before provoking you have to asks whether the victim ever actually crossed into threatening. There’s no video evidence. A bad picture with gun not entirely parallel. Basically a he said/she said. And I’m not sure on the legal definition he needs for proving self defense. It’s a different standard I believe than reasonable doubt.

With him sitting their 6 seconds I’m not seeing the provocation before the issue now.

I agree on the not loaded. He wouldn’t know that and if some points a gun at me I am going to assume it’s loaded.

I’m not a gun guy. But I think you are correct. Which I’m guessing meaning he could have quickly done something to pull a round into chamber.

Either isn’t important for the other persons view of risks.

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