Grim's Hall

EN I.3 and the ICE Shooting Deaths

In the discussion of the post below on ICE shooting two more people recently, Thomas Doubting expressed concerns that the media treatment of ICE meant that we can't expect the matter to be handled fairly in the press. That turns out to provide a practical example for the application of Nicomachean Ethics (EN) I.3, which I cited frequently during the discussion of the EN.

To some degree the United States is transitioning from a high-trust to a low-trust society. Mostly it remains high-trust across its breadth and depth; but in certain cities now everything is locked up to prevent theft, and in politics there is deep distrust between factions. There are many costs to such a transition, and one of them is on display here. People on the right do not trust that ICE will be portrayed or treated fairly, and worry that the protests against it and obstruction of it create additional dangers that may sometimes merit (even lethal) force; people on the left do not trust that ICE will behave morally in any case, suspect it is recruited from bad people to begin with, assume any statements from the Trump administration or any of its subordinate agencies are lies, expect evidence to be hidden (or planted!), etc.

As a result, the only way to address any of these shootings in a way that might gain broad public support for a proposed change is to conduct a thorough investigation, assemble and evaluate the evidence, and then publish the findings. Responsible people thus always call for this (Senator Collins did so in this case).

However! Because such an assembly, evaluation, etc., takes so very long, people who just want to avoid accountability and carry on misbehaving also call for such investigations. By the time the process can play out, ten or a hundred or a thousand more things will have happened. The public will have forgotten the details, also the urgency, and nothing will end up getting done. Thus, both the responsible and the irresponsible settle upon the same course of action; and the result is that nothing changes.

The resolution of a problem like this lies in the principles expressed in I.3.

Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions... We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline.... it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits[.]

So too here. When it comes to legal accountability for the shooter, of course the agent is entitled to a full investigation and -- should immunity be suspended -- a fair trial before a jury. In the subject matter of applying criminal law to past actions, that is the appropriate standard.

When it comes to deciding whether we need a safety stand-down to go over lethal force law in detail with ICE agents for a couple of weeks, with practical exercises and considerable reinforcement about the rights and laws protecting the people on the streets, we do not need such an investigation. That subject can be decided on the basis of the probability, inferred from repeated observations of this type, that such lessons would be wisely applied. The subject matter here is a current ethical decision about the best way to proceed given multiple fatal shootings of unarmed civilians by armed agents of the state.

Likewise a reconsideration of how long agents remain in training before they are deployed, armed and immune, on our streets; likewise, a reconsideration of whether immunity is a wise policy in these cases at all.

The application of criminal law to a particular case is not the same subject as an ethical consideration about whether or not to call for a stand down for further training. A different level of certainty is appropriate to the decision.

UPDATE: To their credit, DHS officials seem to have reached this conclusion independently.

Community Standards Differ

Via X. You probably know both songs, and some of you probably even know all the words to both songs. They are of course "Rocky Top" and "Copperhead Road." (Yes, it's an official state song, Tennessee's 11th. Home of Nashville and all that.)

Against Terror, not Arms

Here is a useful post going back to 1328. I want to pull just that one thread of it for today:

Go back to 1328. The Statute of Northampton made it illegal to go armed in public “to terrify the King's subjects.”1 This wasn’t a gun-control law in the modern sense. It's actually the origin of a distinction courts are still arguing about today: the difference between carrying lawfully and carrying to menace. (We'll come back to this. It shows up by name in the Bruen decision, 700 years later.)

Here's the statute:

Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the King's servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the King's precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King's justices, or other of the King's ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King's pleasure.

As the Wikipedia article points out, this was originally written in Anglo-French, the language of the court. It was really written as 'ne de chivaucher ne de daler arme.'

Now here's what Bruen said about that.

To begin, respondents and their amici point to several medieval English regulations from as early as 1285 that they say indicate a longstanding tradition of restricting the public carry of firearms. See 13 Edw. 1, 102. The most prominent is the 1328 Statute of Northampton (or Statute), passed shortly after Edward II was deposed by force of arms and his son, Edward III, took the throne of a kingdom where “tendency to turmoil and rebellion was everywhere apparent throughout the realm.”... At the time, “[b]ands of malefactors, knights as well as those of lesser degree, harried the country, committing assaults and murders,” prompted by a more general “spirit of insubordination” that led to a “decay in English national life.”...

The Statute of Northampton was, in part, “a product of . . . the acute disorder that still plagued England.”... It provided that, with some exceptions, Englishmen could not “come before the King’s Justices, or other of the King’s Ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in Fairs, Markets, nor in the presence of the Justices or other Ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their Armour to the King, and their Bodies to Prison at the King’s pleasure.”...

Respondents argue that the prohibition on “rid[ing]” or “go[ing] . . . armed” was a sweeping restriction on public carry of self-defense weapons that would ultimately be adopted in Colonial America and justify onerous public-carry regulations. Notwithstanding the ink the parties spill over this provision, the Statute of Northampton—at least as it was understood during the Middle Ages—has little bearing on the Second Amendment adopted in 1791.....

The Statute’s prohibition on going or riding “armed” obviously did not contemplate handguns, given they did not appear in Europe until about the mid-1500s.... Rather, it appears to have been centrally concerned with the wearing of armor....

The Statute’s apparent focus on armor and, perhaps, weapons like launcegays makes sense given that armor and lances were generally worn or carried only when one intended to engage in lawful combat or—as most early violations of the Statute show—to breach the peace.... Contrast these arms with daggers. In the medieval period, “[a]lmost everyone carried a knife or a dagger in his belt.”... While these knives were used by knights in warfare, “[c]ivilians wore them for self-protection,” among other things. Ibid. Respondents point to no evidence suggesting the Statute applied to the smaller medieval weapons that strike us as most analogous to modern handguns.

I mention all this because North Carolina to this day has a law that exactly mirrors the 1328 statute's language. I saw a guy was charged with it locally just the other day. The caselaw here shows that the state courts consider the issue to the be terror, not the arms, and so much so that they've convicted people for 'going armed to the terror of the public' in the absence of arms. Arms in North Carolina are commonly lawfully carried, and require no permit except in the case of concealed arms (which are normally forbidden entirely, excepting only handguns for those with a permit).

You see people carrying arms here all the time; I do myself, like the Medievals a knife in my case. That's not illegal. It's explicitly legal. What's not legal is to go armed for the purpose of terrifying the community. That part has exactly the sort of long heritage in law that the Bruen decision sets up as a legitimating condition for proposed legislation.

Two more ICE Shooting Deaths

You probably heard about the one last week in Houston, but this morning there was another one in Maine that has mostly received local coverage so far.

It does seem like there are a lot more of these shootings that, say, shootings by other Federal agencies. Some of us raised the issue that training was being abbreviated in order to build the ICE agent numbers rapidly, and that it raised the danger of such things happening. Details are too few in the most recent one yet to know if that was the case, but I think given the frequency and scale it's worth asking the question again. Are they getting adequate training for this task before they're being sent out there, and them with Federal immunity to boot?

Fulton County

Atlanta is suddenly invaded by hundreds of FBI agents.

Viking Invasion

Although I'm not watching any World Cup games, I am enjoying the cultural production that's coming out of it all, whether it's the Tartan Army marching on Fenway Park, travelers' tales across the US, or short AI movies like this.

It did not quite turn out that way, I hear.

Hallelujah Trail

Since I mentioned Charley Crockett very approvingly just a bit ago, I thought I might also highlight this story. Many of you will likely approve of it.

Self-Proclaimed Devil-Worshiping Duo Twin Temple Say They Were Removed From Charley Crockett Tour Due To ‘Our Satanic Imagery’

There are more interesting reasons to drop an opening act, but not many. Self-proclaimed satanic doo wop duo Twin Temple revealed this week that “The Hallelujah Trail” country singer Charley Crockett booted them from a planned opening slot on his tour next week because of their Satan-hailing image.

“Today we were informed that Charley Crockett has decided to remove Twin Temple from his upcoming shows next week due to our Satanic imagery,” [Twin Temple said]...

“Unfortunately, that means we will not be able to perform for you next week as planned. We are really disappointed as we were looking forward to getting back out and seeing you, and also what it means as far as bringing different types of people and music lovers together,” added the rockabilly/soul group whose songs include “Lucifer, My Love,” “Sex Magick,” “Burn Your Bible,” “Let’s Have a Satanic Orgy” and “The Devil (Didn’t Make Me Do It)” and whose most recent album was 2023’s God Is Dead.

I mean, you could hardly be clearer. Even Billy Joe Shaver said that the Devil made him do it the first time. Charley has confirmed the allegation, rather firmly.

I don't know if Charley means his song title to be reflective of the late 1960s movie, but if you've never seen it, The Hallelujah Trail is a fantastic comedy. I love it a great deal in spite of its ridiculous and insulting but very era-normal treatment of Native Americans. There was a time when I was called Oracle by a well known military unit that I won't name to avoid their embarrassment. (There was no whiskey involved for me: General Order #1. I was just good at telling them what was going to happen in the next week or two.)

The parts I love best aren't even about that; they're about the struggle between women activists and the US military, which was already evident even at that era. It's beautifully explained and rendered, and not with any hostility to either side.

It's a great movie.

Fear of Arms

The British prime minister was given an engraved Turkish revolver, as were other visiting NATO leaders who were at the recent conference in Ankara. He left it in Turkey to be destroyed rather than bring a gun back to the UK.

Wretchard points out:

Gifts of presentation swords and guns (or other firearms) between heads of state have a long history in diplomacy. These items symbolize honor, alliance, martial prowess, cultural heritage, or goodwill between mighty warriors.
In rejecting the present Starmer made a negligable contribution to the reduction of firearms risk in the UK, but he sent a strong and largely negative symbolic message to the world at large and to Russia, China and the Muslim nations in particular. It conveys what Britain has become and the watching world will behave accordingly.

In addition to this, rejecting a symbolic gift from another nation is an insult. It is similar to but much worse than refusing to take the tea or coffee offered by a tribal leader when you come into his tent. Weapon-gifts are especially honorable because they transcend the offer of peace symbolized by the hospitality of tea, and convey that you are respected as one who can be trusted to be armed as well. The nation of Britain is humiliated by this action, whereas a nominal ally who needed to be reassured is insulted.

Turns out Los Angeles Does a Pretty Good Independence Day Too

I certainly enjoyed seeing Grim's posts around Independence Day, and while I've done a few small town Independence Day events and enjoyed them thoroughly, Los Angeles actually has a pretty good time on the Fourth as well- in fact, it turns out you can see it from space, and it's spectacular:

NASA was kind enough to post this little video on X, which is where I caught it.

We live in the hills, so with the high fire danger we don't launch any fireworks ourselves, but we can go up our back hill and have a nice view out over the city and we watch the neighborhood below put on a show for us all night long. Started before sunset and didn't end until well after midnight. The dog's aren't so keen about it, but we enjoyed it.

For once I had something to be proud about living here in L.A. and had to post this.