site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   31304 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of May 15, 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.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

immediate otherwise unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily harm to the innocent.

so, a guy without a knife saying "I'm gonna go get a knife come back here and stab you"

According to this video, to be in the clear in most jurisdictions, you should... just not be there when he comes back.

In the case of Neely... did he have a history of causing grave bodily harm to anyone? The man had... let's see... four alleged assault charges? everything else was trespassing, public urination, disturbing the peace, etc. Is that even enough? If his assaults were impotent does that count as disparity of force? In the situation where he died, he was in a subway with enough other sane people that he was rather outnumbered... everyone else had the force of numbers. This doctrine seems to let you do a lot of dickery before anyone is actually permitted 'deadly force'.

According to this video, to be in the clear in most jurisdictions, you should... just not be there when he comes back.

The way I understand it is that if you want to be as sure as you can in all jurisdictions then yes. It doesn't mean you'll definitely be found guilty if you don't leave. But if you can't leave, as in the subway car, I'm not sure how relevant it is?

In the case of Neely... did he have a history of causing grave bodily harm to anyone?

I don't think his criminal history can generally be admitted as evidence unless Penny or someone else involved knew it. The really relevant facts are "what was he doing in the moment?"

This doctrine seems to let you do a lot of dickery before anyone is actually permitted 'deadly force'.

I mean, yes? I have to admit I'm confused by the statement. We're talking about killing a person, regardless of whether some people think that being mentally hill or on drugs or a petty criminal means you're subhuman. This is very much something we as a society should be taking seriously, and not permitting for minor annoyances or slights.

According to this video, to be in the clear in most jurisdictions, you should... just not be there when he comes back.

No. If he comes back with a knife, then you can use deadly force, because then the risk is imminent.

Yes, but it wasn't unavoidable. Because he told you he was coming back with a knife. Such a case comes up in the video. I mean, I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction but still.

Well, the problem is that the guy in the video is not a lawyer and his statement is wrong under US law. There is no obligation to avoid a place you have the right to be just because someone threatened to kill you if you went there. It is obviously wrong in a stand your ground state, but also in non-stand your ground states like NY, where the duty to retreat is not triggered until the threat is imminent:

The trial judge believed Davis was not entitled to a charge on justification because, by returning to Amsterdam Avenue where he knew Bubblegum was, he violated the statutory duty to retreat. At that moment, Davis was able to retreat with complete safety, simply by leaving the vicinity. The trial judge believed Davis's duty to retreat arose as of that moment, so that his return to Amsterdam Avenue caused a forfeiture of his right to receive a charge on justification.

[However] Under the terms of Section 35.15, the duty to retreat does not arise until the defendant forms a reasonable belief that the other person "is using or about to use deadly physical force." N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15(1). The ruling of the New York Court of Appeals in Y.K., further spelled out that this duty does "not arise until the point at which [the other person's use of] deadly physical force was [actually occurring] or imminent." Y.K., 87 N.Y.2d at 434, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 663 N.E.2d 313.

Davis v. Strack, 270 F. 3d 111 (2nd Circuit 2001)

Note also that that video is ancient; he refers to the Soviet Union, and the guy depicted is now almist 80 years old.

Unfortunately, that was the ruling of a Federal court. New York courts do not consider the rulings of Federal courts (other than the Supreme Court) on state law to be be binding precedent. So notwithstanding the 2nd Circuit ruling, the opposite NY Court of Appeals ruling remains law in New York.

It is following state law, and there is no opposite Court of Appeals precedent: the Y.K. case is from the NY Court of Appeals, ie, from highest NY state court, and was "issued after Davis's trial." 270 F.2d at 116.

Again, as it says, "The ruling of the New York Court of Appeals in Y.K., further spelled out that this duty [to retreat] does "not arise until the point at which [the other person's use of] deadly physical force was [actually occurring] or imminent." Y.K., 87 N.Y.2d at 434, 639 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 663 N.E.2d 313." (Initial bracketed material and emphasis added ).

In one instance he materially injured an old woman. He also appears to have attempted to kidnap a small kid.

This doctrine seems to let you do a lot of dickery before anyone is actually permitted 'deadly force'.

Well yes, that’s the point. ‘Being a dickhead’ isn’t a death sentence whether you’re in Texas or New York, you have to actually present an immediate threat. Obviously there’s a pretty big gray area as to what’s threatening and what’s being a dickhead, and that’s why Florida and New York have extremely different laws about this(in your knife example, a Florida man would be justified in shooting first when the other man returns while a New Yorker probably has to get stabbed).

while a New Yorker probably has to get stabbed

No, certainly not. People v. Hagi, 169 AD 2d 203 (1991) [" it is certainly objectively reasonable to believe that a knife-wielder who threatens to kill poses an imminent threat of unlawful physical force."]

Good luck stopping/restraining a knife-wielder without being stabbed. Guns are functionally illegal in NY so no luck there either.

Good luck stopping/restraining a knife-wielder without being stabbed

Do you not understand that you are agreeing that the law in NY permits you to use deadly force before being stabbed?

Guns are functionally illegal in NY so no luck there either.

Far less so than in the past, yet that did not stop Bernard Goetz from both using a gun in self-defense and being acquitted.

If you have access to absolutely all facts about the incident, having committed assault in the past shouldn't change your opinion. If you don't, you need to consider things like "was he acting threateningly in ways that could be perceived" and someone who has committed assault in the past is more likely to have been acting threateningly this time. It's not like he pushes a button and acts completely normal before he smashes your skull in.

Sure.

Is it different for non-deadly force? Obviously its not Murder if noone dies and not attempted murder without intent.

But if Neely had lived, I'm not clear on whether Penny would have been charged with assault.

I'm mulling over the various perspectives...

There have been posts on Neely in past culture war threads along the lines of "We should be punching disruptive members of society more." there have been even more extreme takes along the lines of "Barbarians are not moral subjects. Kill em." There have been counter-takes that you don't want random citizens playing judge-jury-executioner. There have been takes like "The system should be dealing with this. Neely shouldn't have been on the streets."

More information about the legal realities at play give more texture to these takes.

Re any force, the amount used must be proportionate to the threat that is reasonably believed to exist. People v. Terk, 24 AD 3d 1038 (-NY: Appellate Div., 2005).

But the real issue in this case is probably not going to be the initiation of the use of force, but its nature and length. Penny is charged with second degree manslaughter, which requires recklessness, and in NY " A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation."

It obviously does not help him that one guy there warned that he might be killing Neely. And it does not help that two others began helping to restrain Neely; once that happens, arguably the threat posed by Neely is greatly reduced, and hence the need to use a chokehold is greatly reduced. Of course, I don't know how far into the event that happened. But the point is that the legal issues likely to be involved are quite different from the issues being discussed here.

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