Just when I think I can’t imagine any worse quotes from an ethics perspective than for example, the despicable rant by Minneapolis Mayer Frey, an Ethics Villain, or any number of Tim Walz’s attempts to foment violence and rioting, someone else says “Hold my beer!”
Imagine a law enforcement officer saying or even thinking this…
“Even if there is an investigation that ultimately proves that at the time of the shooting it was legally justified, I don’t think that even matters at this point, because there is so just much outrage and concern around what is happening in the city.”
—Minneapolis Chief of Police Brian O’Hara, siding with the rioters as he discussed the I.C.E. shooting of Alex Pretti
Let’s see: unethical, dangerous, irresponsible, illogical and stupid. In fact, Sidney Wang wants to get a word in but he’s been appearing here too often lately, through no fault of his own, so he’s sidelined.
So the position of law enforcement in Minnesota is that law, facts and reality must take a metaphorical back seat to “feelz”: if people are upset enough, it justifies law-breaking, rioting, threatening and harassing officers, anything, really. This is the world view of the progressives—anarchists, really—that Democrats are supporting now. There are no rationalizations that can excuse this. These are bad—okay, unethical—people who are preaching chaos and opposing everything the human race has learned about preserving civilization.
Jonathan Turley, who has a book out about the politics of rage in the U.S., appears to have had his head explode from O’Harra’s statement and those by others, like Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes (Guess which party!), who said that she does not consider ICE officers to be “real law enforcement” and that Arizonans may have the right to shoot them. He wrote in part yesterday,
“Law enforcement officers do not expect blind deference on shootings. However, they have a right to expect a fair chance for an investigation to hear their side of a shooting — not a governor or a mayor rushing before cameras to effectively accuse them of murder.
At this point, it may not matter. Only the mob matters…Walz has demonstrated politics of the lowest kind, stoking anger as citizens and officers alike are injured. Walz is pledging to go to court to stop further operations—a lawsuit that would be another frivolous filing. Previously, the state, including Attorney General Keith Ellison, filed to prevent the federal government from increasing forces to investigate fraud and immigration violations.
Walz, Maye, and others are following a long line of demagogues who sought to use social unrest to advance their political careers. For Walz, sending people into the streets has the benefit of not having them at home watching and reading about the growing fraud scandal in his state.
It is not a defense of democracy, but mobocracy in Minnesota.”
At some point criticizing these terrible people and trying to explain why they are not just wrong but insanely wrong, diabolically wrong, isn’t enough.
Right now, however, I can’t say what is enough. Clearly the current response isn’t working.
Ethics Alarms 
Outrage and concern by progressive street thugs that their elected crime bosses’ corruption is going to be found out.
Oh yeah and something about immigrants or something.
(Same progressives that are really mad that Maduro isn’t president of Venezuela any more)
Again, you can’t reason people out of arguments they didn’t reason themselves into. I’ve given up trying.
I just want to point out that, while it’s certainly true that officers don’t expect blind deference in defensive shootings, they do expect and receive very broad deference.
How broad? Philando Castile was shot although legally armed and totally cooperative throughout, due to a momentary misunderstanding. The officer involved was acquitted. Daniel Shaver was shot and killed despite being totally unarmed, as well as cooperative, lying prone, sobbing, pleading for his life. That officer was also acquitted.
How bad does it have to be before deference reaches its limit? Consider the case of Justine Diamond, who was shot without warning by a Minneapolis cop when she approached his cruiser, unarmed and in her pyjamas, to report a crime. He did three years. Or consider the shooting of Botham Jean, who was shot in his boxer shorts on his living room sofa, a bowl of ice cream in his hands, when an officer supposedly mistook his apartment for her own. She was sentenced to ten years.
So as we can see, deference has limits, but they are set quite generously in favor of police.
The bar has moved since you examples, though. I doubt the officers that killed Philando Castile or Daniel Shaver would be acquitted today.
The fact that these officers are federal changes things though. There is even less accountability for federal officers so they’re probably pretty safe.
Why did you leave out Ashley Babbet. She was a veteran and unarmed. Cut down in cold blood by a racist ill trained Capitol Police officer named Byrd who got a medal from the President. Was it because she was on the wrong team
They were also really made about George Floyd.
So, it was okay for them to burn down the 3rd Precinct?
-Jut
Just today read an observation that ICE agents are traiend to enforce Immigration Law, not crowd, or mob control. That is the purvey of local law enforcement. Unfortunatley, at every level of municial government the locals are ordered not to do their duty strictly for political reasons. Thus, the lives of ICE and the mod are palced in danger.
I have retoted to many of my liberal aquantences that what we are seeing is not defense of freddom but mob anarchy.
O’Hara’s statement is a simple, straightforward description of the situation in Minneapolis and other parts of Minnesota. I don’t see how a factual description can be unethical, and I expect a chief of police to have a good grasp of the situation on the ground.
There are, of course, protesters who want ICE out entirely, but many who might agree with getting illegal immigrants (I use that term despite a dislike for it) who also are dangerous criminals out of the country, there are many who are demonstrating against the brutality and fear ICE is engendering among ordinary citizens. It does not take very many videos or images of the tactics ICE is using to see where that fear comes from.
If you want a more controversial statement, O’Hara also said this: “The problem is not that enforcement is happening. It’s clearly the manner in which these things are happening. These tactics are very obviously not safe, and it is generating a lot of outrage and fear in the community.”
He literally said all that matters is the outrage and the facts didn’t.
The other statement is simply a lie. There is nothing unsafe about I.C.E. operations if citizens don’t actively interfere with them, and if local law enforcement does its job.
And how can you spin that statement coming from a police official? His duty is to say, “Folks, what “matters” here is the law, and that all that ever matters when officers are trying to enforce it. Your opinions, theories and political views don’t matter. Stay out of the way.” He wasn’t stating facts, and how delusional radicals see the fact is not an excuse for anything.
It seems clear to me that O’Hara is saying that the results of the investigation won’t matter to the people protesting. They won’t care whether the shooting was legally justified, they will refer to it as murder, and they will continue to protest and attempt to interfere with ICE operations.
With only the quote you provided, and no tone of voice, I can’t tell if O’Hara approves of that state of affairs or if he’s lamenting it. Did you find any other quotes by him about this situation that you used for context to interpret this one?
That’s pure confirmation bias. He didn’t say to whom the results wouldn’t matter, he said that the facts—the results—wouldn’t matter. The matter completely. They have to matter, or the officer will “have” to be sacrificed to the mob, just like Derek Chauvin was. The context is the English language. He’s speaking in a dangerous period, and its his job to be clear and unequivocal. I take him as his word.
There is a great deal of confirmation bias in the whole matter of ICE operations, and specifically in their tactics with regard to protesters. I see a flip-flop in that regard when it comes to J6. Who rules the roost and who bows down to that ruler seems to be controlling then and now.
I’m making a fairly confident guess as to what O’Hara means by the investigation results not mattering, but I could be wrong. For something to “matter,” it has to matter for a particular audience or purpose. It can’t just “matter” in general. Much of the time when people say “this matters,” the audience or purpose for which it matters is implied rather than explicit. Sometimes that makes it confusing.
I’m making an assumption that O’Hara is saying that the opinions and behavior of the protesters towards ICE will not be significantly changed by the results of the investigation. You seem to be assuming that he was actually definitely saying that investigating the true circumstances of the shooting is not valuable to society and not worth pursuing, and that they should have no bearing on how the officer is treated by the courts. Did he say anything to lead you to that conclusion other than what you quoted?
Of course it can “matter” in general. Lots of things matter universally. That statement is a cop-out like “there is no objective truth” to permit ethical relativism and confusion.
He did not say “all that matters is the outrage”. He did literally say that an investigation showing the killing was justified would not matter so far as the outrage is concerned, a fair assessment of the situation there, given the outrage is based on more than this latest killing.
At least he did not render a conclusion of the investigation, as Noem and Trump have done, and as they did in the case of the killing of Good.
As to the veracity of his statement about the manner of enforcement, people do not all perceive the images, videos, and accounts the same way.
He literally did NOT say “so far as the outrage is concerned.” What he said was that the outrage negates justice in Minneapolis, and justice is his job. As I wrote, he said that mob emotions negate justice and facts. You’re spinning to justify an inexcusable statement. Why would you do that?
He did not say mob emotions negate justice. He said, on the ground where he operates, mob emotions are provoked (legitimately or not — let confirmation bias rule here) by ICE tactics, and those emotions will continue no matter the ruling on the killing.
What were you expecting from the same police department that betrayed Derick Chauvin and three other police officers?
Expect the best, be prepared for the worst.
“It does not take very many videos or images of the tactics ICE is using to see where that fear comes from.”
In my view it is more truthful to acknowledge that the sole reason there is such aggression by the officers is directly the result of the opposition they receive. Is this not a certain and true fact?
What if the people were cooperative?
One must (this is my opinion) acknowledge a group of facts that underlie this entire situation 1) a whole segment of the US population is in a revolt against the president his administration and his policies. It is nearly “lawlessness” in its resistance. 2) The embrace of illegal immigration is (unless I am wrong?) a Democrat Party tactic to swell that party so they can win future elections. 3) More activist political progressives see themselves as in a political and social (and ideological) battle for the country itself. So “whatever tactics work” will be and are being employed.
The Federal govt is also waging a battle, however their opposition (media systems and power segments) are set on undermining Trump et al and proceeding with their plans for the country.
Doesn’t this seem accurate?
Certain and true? Reminds me of Kindergarten — you started it-didnot-did too-did not you liar-did too you poopypants.
Cooperative? Not sure. Seems to work in the Hermit Kingdom. Here? Dunno.
1) Agree.
2) Who knows?
3) Yes, and so do many activists on both sides.
As to the penultimate paragraph, yes, it does seem accurate, so long as we switch sides when the opposing political party takes power.
And, I thank you for beguiling me to think, something a bit unusual here.
2) Who knows? 3) Yes, and so do many activists on both sides.
In a paragraph or two, how would you describe what is going on in the US? (I guess I mean in a ‘meta’ sense). (If you do not mind answering of course).
I also wonder if you could make a prediction: Where is this tending? What will it lead to?
It is only January and this is already the second unethical quote of the year (the first one was from Mamdani at January 2nd), so that makes me very optimistic about the rest of the year!
What matters is the lack of will of the police chief, mayor and governor to help enforce federal immigration law. Instead the Minnesotan officials stand with the anti-ICE mobs in thwarting enforcement by any means possible. There is no reason to parse the words of any of these officials because they are not meant to be reasonable. Walz and Frey and all the other Democrats are sticking to their guns because they think that chaos and martyrs will help them win the PR battle on immigration. Megyn Kelly is already waving the white flag by calling for ICE to withdraw from all blue sanctuary states. Which is precisely what the Democrats want as that will help blue states with the census, which determines number of representatives in the House plus electoral votes.