Lamenting till the new AI Culture appears

So many are so upset with the ICE shooting in Minnesota of a young mother of three - what are we to do?

Ultimately, each person must come to their own personal judgement.  Below I composed short review of legal justification in the use of force to guide my discernment. What came out from my discernment was my understanding of time and how the 3 cultures are always with us.   I labeled these warring sides by "the timeless cultures":

My Conclusion

I begin with a perspective on Gaza-Isreal:

• If one can justifies Israel's inhumane handling of Gaza during 2025 then one can justify anything. This is the "1980 Culture" speaking.
• If one can see the lack of order, the endless chaos and decaying values with the Oct 7 attack on Isreal then one can justify righteous actions in order to bring a just global order.   This is the "1919 Culture" speaking.

Why bring the Gaza-Israel dilemma into the shooting of a mother of three within a US city?  We are at peace.  There is so much destruction outside  us US, leave it there.  How do these relate? (Hint: it is not dualistic.)

The "1919 Culture" (see below) see the ALL recent heavy suppression actions of the US as being needed  to fight evil forces - even into the neighborhoods of American cities.   Thus they will naturally see the Minnesota shooting as justified. 

But what are the principles and test that justifies such actions.   

I doubt many of the 1919 Culture will discern the real consequences of supporting such suppression. 

Many see today's world from a dualistic point of view: it's either-or, you have to choose sides.  And some things are justified.  Still, I just heard a friend say "I call a spade a spade" (speak plainly, simply and clearly).   Already, this blog has violated the spade principle.  

And not to complicate matters more, the ICE shootings will have wider impact then just political.   A friend had to deal with a veteran having a PTSD episode upon seeing video of the Minnesota shooting (the veteran witnessed a family being shoot during the war).  Consider the real human impact of being called a US Citizen. 

In the end, my spade is this: 

We are at war.   It is clear that the 1919 Culture has power and is using it and does not need justification nor cares about getting along.

The 1980 Culture is suffering and lamenting the demise of American sense of justice.  But too much of the 1980 Culture is thinking dualistically (binary) and hoping for fictional superman to come and correct things.  In war, people die. 

What is clear too me is:

a) Israel is justified in defending itself, but is culpable in seeking more then justice. 

b) The 1919 Culture has power that is based on the mis-perception that they will have such power forever.

c) American have a conservative mindset and world view - this is a given.  Therefore they can not see beyond the dollars within their wallet (savings/house) -- they are scared, tired and weakening. 

d) The 1980 Culture has not learned the greatest lesson of time : you must give up control to gain control. Ie. give up the old to regain the levers of governance by using AI. 

e) Finally,  the ICE agent was wrong to have fired.   But I do not fault the individual.  I fault myself, as a member of this society and lament - Oh Lord!  Forgive us! How much longer will we stay in these trials?

What are we too do?  By engaging without any power we lament and wait for the dead to pile up. 

I pray the new AI culture hears and seeks a brighter course. 

Background

Grasping the Shifting American Culture

I claim there is a bigger issue: the America's culture.  Specifically on our sense of justice based on "the rule of law". 

Language is such an extremely powerful tool; even more powerful than AI.   We can all agree on the current narrative language that "America is so polarized".  And still, events come and go while we go on about our business.  

All the while, everyone knows there is something more powerful happening.  Note how justifications of force shifts over time below.

It has too be said "America is in a state of war culture".   

What is funnier is that we are all financing the war machine to the tune of  $75 Billion for internal strife!  

One could say that we financing the machine against ourselves.   As I looked at the legal justification change over time it becomes clearer that there are 3 culture players at work within our world today. 

The table below tries to label these "war cultures" using the language of time.  One must consider the culture of society that droves each of these legal tests and the resulting decisions.   The idea of "objective reasonableness" requires that  we take into account the "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" circumstances of our world.   And finally, it is important to review the table and assess the circumstances of each case.  Then we can arrive at a conclusion on our sense of justice and our trust in the rule of law. 

Cultures:	1919 - Industrial	1980 - Information	Today -AI
Peace vs War	America finished WWI and Communism is on global rise.  We are at peace but the wounds of war are present.	America just finished the culture revolution, Vietnam and liberal views are on the rise.  We are at peace but the wounds of war are present.	American is in the midst of "culture wars" over values and lifestyles.  We face the reality of pervasive militarization and consistent conflict engagement. We are at peace but in a state of "war culture"
Imminent lawless (1969)	Horizon of industrial boom; while seeing expansion of rich-poor social economic classes. Heavy suppression.	High peaks of globalization w/ economic expansion continuing. Lower social economic people growing tired with lifestyles. Heavy protections.	US power continuing with growing global challenges - esp. AI and resources.  US is in decline and in needs of radical transformation.  Heavy suppression.
Significant threat of death	Communism becomes the highest threat.  Full press on anti-communism.	Liberal labeled as socialist rising their threat to American culture.  Beginning of clash/polarization.	Foriegners added to threat from liberals.  Full collapse of American values and principles.
Fleeing Suspects	Communist parties. Labor unions Non-white	Conservatives.  Corporations Religious organizations.	Fed. Institutions Liberals Supporters of DEI

ps: this table was composed by myself w/ help from Google/AI. 

Evolution of Clear and Present Danger

• 1919 - The concept originated in the cases that tested whether speech posed a clear and present danger that could lead to outcomes Congress had a right to prevent.
• Schenck v. United States - "It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.” - Justice Holmes
• Abrams v. United States - found the clear and present danger test as articulated in Schenck insufficient to protect basic constitutional rights.
• “we should be eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of opinions . . . unless they so imminently threaten immediate interference with the lawful and pressing purpose of the law that an immediate check is required to save the country.”
• Thus, he elevated the danger requirement from “clear” to “imminent” interference with legal action.
• 1925 - As articulated in Gitlow v. New York — when he stated that “in time of peace,” the pamphleteer and co-defendants “would have been within their constitutional rights.”
• The "clear and present danger test" is different from the "bad tendency test" — which was predominant in English common law.
• This case involved the conviction of Benjamin Gitlow for publishing material that advocated the Communist reconstruction of society.
• The Supreme Court observed in Gitlow, “Freedom of speech and press . . . does not protect publications or teachings which tend to subvert or imperil the government or to impede or hinder it in the performance of its governmental duties.”
• The bad tendency test protects only innocuous (not harmful) speech; it criminalizes all seditious libels (false statement that is damaging to a person/institution's reputation; a written defamation).
• 1969 - Adoption of the  imminent lawless action test.
•  Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) - The clear and present danger test is refined and eventually replaced. 
• Justice William J. Brennan Jr. redrafted the per curiam opinion, substituting for clear and present danger a new standard (Schwartz 1995: 27): 
• “The constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or law violation except where such advocacy is directed to
•  inciting or producing imminent lawless action and 
• is likely to incite or produce such action.
• The current standard allows speech suppression only if it is directed at and likely to incite imminent lawless action.
  
  
• Modern - While less common in First Amendment law, the term appears in other legal contexts. 
• For instance, Illinois uses it to define individuals posing a risk of harm to themselves or others, impacting FOID card eligibility. 
• The ACLU notes that police may not break up a protest unless there is a "clear and present danger" to public safety. 

Deadly Force

The rules for police using deadly force are primarily governed by the "objective reasonableness" standard set by the U.S. Supreme Court, which allows shooting only when an officer reasonably believes there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm.  You will note how force is tied to responding to speech, 

• Objective Reasonableness:
  Established in the Supreme Court case Graham v. Connor, the use of force must be judged from the perspective of a "reasonable officer on the scene" at the moment the force is used, taking into account the "tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving" circumstances, not with 20/20 hindsight.
  
  
• Imminent Threat:
  This is the most important factor. An officer is justified in using deadly force in self-defense or in defense of others when they have probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm.
  
  
• Fleeing Felons:
  The 1985 Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner limited the old "fleeing felon" rule. Officers cannot use deadly force against a non-violent, unarmed fleeing suspect just to prevent escape. Deadly force is only permissible if the fleeing suspect is reasonably believed to have committed a violent crime involving serious physical harm or poses an imminent threat to the community if they escape.