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.
6 comments:
".......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.".....
This is called "Form a Committee."
"...Responsible people thus always call for this (Senator Collins did so in this case)...."
You are assuming good will with the adjective "responsible." It is particularly dangerous to say that a politician is 'of good will.'
You are assuming good will with the adjective "responsible."
I don't mean to suggest such an assumption at all. I just mean that she is a responsible person, in the sense that (say) Donald Trump is not. When she makes a public statement, she intends it to mean something and to follow through with what she says. When he makes a public statement, it may be walked back -- or just away from -- by afternoon. It may be followed up with ten other statements that all conflict with each other. His words mean nothing; hers mean something.
That doesn't imply that he's always wrong and she's always right, or that her will as such is better than his. It is a traditionally valued quality, responsibility, because it attends to dependability and predictability; it makes us easier for others to deal with. But it doesn't mean goodness, not simpliciter.
Individuals are entitled to justice,and we try to preserve that even in the case of difficult circumstances.
I cannot help but wonder, though, if we did not have so many recent illegal aliens, would we have such a pressing need to rush training for so many new recruits? Practicalo consequences sometimes intrude on theory.
They say that a rare quality of guilt is that it can be divided without being lessened; as such, there is plenty to go around.
On the practical matter of 'what should we do about this issue of people getting shot in the street by state agents?', however, assigning guilt is not even that important to the question. That too is a practical consideration: assuming we would like this not to keep happening, how do we get the issue under control?
Yes, Trump is finding that NYC negotiating limps in the real world.
And now he is demonstrating the success of Bre'r Rabbit's (Iran's) plea: "Don't put me in the briar-patch!! PLEASE DON'T!!"
He won't get another chance to lead the US into Israel's War, thank God. Once is more than enough.
Apparently the local media found an eyewitness, and he seemed fairly certain the driver "tried to hit the ICE officer". Seems significant. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/PUEzuHUjATk?app=desktop&ra=m
Post a Comment