site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1yr ago (text post)   27526 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of November 6, 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.

5
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

And that is why Grosskruetz was arrested for brandishing, right? We had video evidence of him aiming at a retreating man, he spoke both before and after at length about how he opposed what Rittenhouse was standing for, and it later turned out his concealed carry permit had been revoked -- he actually was breaking the law, and given the limited legal avenues to revoke CCWs in the state, probably not just in carrying concealed.

Or... that didn't happen, no one cared, and you can't even get media coverage of the whole "armed ACLU 'observer' nearly shot a teenager who was defending himself."

You've gotta recognize how naked this salami-slicing looks. We can't have someone walking the streets after they TOOK A GUN ACROSS STATE LINES because despite clear video evidence of self-defense because it's possible that he was really guilty. Meanwhile, applauding terrorists as heroes, we really have to give the benefit of the doubt until and unless specific evidence that he "acted very violently" because it might just be involuntary manslaughter.

Which, last I checked, was still pretty damned illegal.

I'm not making a statement for which way justice should go -- there's tradeoffs each direction! -- but come off it. It's clearly not the same standard for each case.

I really don't understand what Grosskruetz has to do with anything, but, regardless:

because it's possible that he was really guilty

That is literally all that probable cause to charge a defendant requires: ""`"An information will not be set aside ... if there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed and the accused is guilty of it."' [Citation.]" (People v. Arjon (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 185, 193 [emphasis in original].

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the principle that a motivated prosecutor can charge a ham sandwich, just as a motivated police officer can form an arrest for a fallen tree trunk. I even recognize that it's possible if unlikely for clearly exonerating video to come out, and back in the op, "I don't want to extrapolate too hard from this case yet because it could end in a hard conviction next month."

Do you want to make a bet?

I am talking about how probable cause is defined, not about what a prosecutor can convince a grand jury to do. Your complaint about someone being indicted where the evidence shows only that he is possibly guilty doesn't make sense.

Note that the mere fact that a prosecutor secures an indictment does not necessarily mean the case can go to trial, because the defendant in every state I have ever heard of can move to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the evidence presented to the grand jury did not establish probable cause. See, eg, CA Penal Code sec 995; NY Crim Proc sec 210.20. Hence, there is a difference between what a prosecutor can convince a jury to do, and what constitutes probable cause.

This continues to be a long description of incredibly low standards that someone applied aggressively in other cases, and has not, so far, applied here, while they could readily do so.

Again, you are making a claim about practices, while I am referring to what the law permits. And, you have no data on practices. I see articles every day in which police are investigating whether the suspect committed a crime and, if so, which one.

And, btw, "there is some rational ground for assuming the possibility that an offense has been committed" is not a blank check. Rather, "'the People must make some showing as to the existence of each element of the charged offense.'" People v. Scully (2021) 11 Cal.5th 542, 582. For murder or voluntary manslaughter based on a sudden quarrel, that means evidence that the defendant either intended to kill, or that he intentionally committed an act, the natural consequences of which were dangerous to human life; and he knew the act was dangerous to human life, and he deliberately acted with conscious disregard for human life.

I have a number of examples of practices, which I've referenced at length, and you've responded by saying things like "I really don't understand what Grosskruetz has to do with anything", or by separating how each and every one fit into some newly constructed category that makes it impossible to compare and contrast.

What I don't have is a deep statistical analysis of every possible homicide in the United States, because it's a ridiculous demand -- much of the data just doesn't exist to start with, especially for non-prosecutions by definition! -- and the overwhelming majority of examples would be in such different classes that it would be meaningless.

You raise some interesting questions about where this would fall on the line between second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter if the available details are true, and if you tried to engage seriously I'm sure you could probably make a more serious argument why the lack of arrest or likely prosecution is reasonable here.

What you've not done is present a meaningful separation from this case and others: we do, in fact, arrest and prosecute cases that would 'just' be accidental killings or 'just' have one set of witnesses claiming one thing and another set claiming the other, with (astonishingly!) no video contradicting either.

What I don't have is a deep statistical analysis of every possible homicide in the United States, because it's a ridiculous demand -- much of the data just doesn't exist to start with, especially for non-prosecutions by definition! -- and the overwhelming majority of examples would be in such different classes that it would be meaningless.

No one says you have to do a deep statistical analysis of every possible homicide, but how about something more than n=2? The point is that you are very, very sure that there is something anomalous going on, yet you say you have no data. So perhaps you should be less sure.

why the lack of arrest or likely prosecution is reasonable here.

Lack of arrest yet. The victim did not die until 1 am, after the suspect presumably had been allowed to go home. So, should the cops have arrested him at the scene? Well, simple battery is a misdemeanor in California (Penal Code sec 243(a)), and a police officer cannot arrest a suspect for a misdemeanor without an arrest warrant unless the offense is committed in the officer's presence (Penal Code sec 836(a)), so an arrest for simple battery would be unlawful. What about battery that results in great bodily injury (Penal Code sec 243(d))? Well, even that is a "wobbler" -- it can be charged as either a misdemeanor or a felony. Does that permit an arrest without a warrant that did not occur in the officer's presence? Maybe, but what if a court says it doesn't? Then an arrest would be illegal, and any subsequent statement by the suspect would likely be rendered inadmissible. And, here, where we are talking about a suspect who is cooperative, has ties to the area, who is 50 years old, and who presumably has no criminal record -- ie, someone who is neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community -- why risk that?

And, speaking of inadmissible statements, once he is arrested, all sorts of legal protections kick in, including his right to an attorney, his statutory speedy trial rights, and a host of others. In contrast, the benefits of arresting him immediately are, what, exactly? He is going to be released the next day on bail if not on his own recognizance.

Finally, now that he has been released, the police cannot arrest him without first getting an arrest warrant. That means assembling evidence, and it means including material exculpatory evidence known to police in the warrant affidavit. All of that takes time.

That's why, as I noted, I see media reports of suspects being released pending investigation happens all the time.

PS: You seem to have inadvertently linked to the same case twice.

Thanks, fixed.

No one says you have to do a deep statistical analysis of every possible homicide, but how about something more than n=2?

I've got a few others in that FCFromSSC link, and I can do a broader list on both fatal or nearly-fatal incidents from several of my past posts, but the sample size is (thankfully, currently!) small; any N I can list will be a significant portion of all incidents. And people made the opposite insistence on theMotte's reddit during the Rittenhouse era or when more broadly speaking about police violence, where just one unprosecuted case, even if marginal, was unacceptable.

That said:

Lack of arrest yet.

To be fair, he has been arrested today

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