Justin Amash vs. Death Star

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan joins David and Sarah to discuss his announcement that he ...

By

Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan joins David and Sarah to discuss his announcement that he is exploring a presidential run as a candidate of the Libertarian Party. David and Sarah then turn to the shooting death of Ahmaud Arbery, a 25-year-old black man, in a South Georgia neighborhood.


Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
By
Comments (24)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Theirn Scott

    Thank you for the conversation with Justin Amash. It's refreshing to see he's not a Jacob Hornberger (wacko) libertarian. While you did press him, I think he needs more pressing, especially on foreign policy. I've been voting for LP candidates since 1992 and foreign policy has always been a difficult area for me as I tend to lean a bit more "conservative" in that area. I don't want the libertarians to abandon their ideology to become politically viable but libertarianism has to applied in the real world, not in an idealistic one that assumes a libertarian world.

    I want to hear more from Amash but I'm heartened that he may have the chops to bring the Libertarian Party into the mainstream. There's no better opportunity than now.

    Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Bruce Mamont

    My reaction after listening to David's description of the documented decisions of the assistant DAs is that they were committing "crony prosecution", ignoring the law in favor of an acquaintance.

    Does GA have a provision that the government must reimburse the costs of a successfully defended "self-defense" case? If, somehow, these miscreants avoid conviction, will they be vulnerable to a civil suit?

    I commend to all "The Law of Self-Defense" by Andrew Branca. Every defense of the vigilantes that I've read demonstrates appalling ignorance of basic tenants.

    To those who wonder how a former police officer could behave in the manner that's been described, I'll note that concealed carry permit holders commit fewer crimes and train more than police officers.

    Collapse
  3. Ira K

    Thanks for the Amash interview. I was considering not voting, but once I realized I fall in the D&D playing, middle aged, white male category, I guess I have to vote LP!

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photostaff-badge-circle
      David French staff-badge Staff

      Welcome, brother.

      Collapse
  4. PM

    After Amash, very powerful things were said that needed to be said.

    Collapse
  5. Avatar photo
    John Bowling

    Since the end of the podcast (@ 57:20) mentions the comment section of David's article on the Arbery case and this is relevant to (though maybe not directed at) my own comments on that article I guess I'll chime in here and share my own response to what's said on the podcast:

    Regarding those who are agnostic on the racism issue:

    Sarah: "Okay. You're going to have to tell me the last time anything like this has happened to you."

    Me: That's a really poor criterion for whether or not an action was racially motivated.

    David: "Well, let me put it this way. It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, but we have not yet had the DNA analysis to confirm that it is a duck."

    Me: That's a good way of communicating your conclusion of the evidence, but it's not actually an argument for how we should assess the evidence.

    David: "But, yeah, I can't remember hearing the last time that an armed posse mounted up to go and pursue and seize a white dude jogging through a white neighborhood."

    Sarah: "Pursuant to two 911 calls that identify his crime as jogging while being black."

    Me: But David and Sarah are (mis)framing the issue in a way that no reasonable person could disagree with them. And that can lead to suspicion as to why a seemingly reasonable person is disagreeing with them. Might it be owing to some other nefarious motive (i.e., tacit racism)? I know David and Sarah aren't attempting to tacitly charge a portion of their audience with tacit racism--but they should know that this is how things quickly spin out of control on the internet. I've already been accused by at least one person in the comments of the other article of being a racist... because I'm withholding judgment on the racial accusation.

    So David and Sarah's framing the case isn't helpful or charitable to their audience. If it were the case that the posse mounted up only because Arbery was jogging through the neighborhood, as David and Sarah frame it, then I would agree that we have sufficient warrant to think think it was racially motivated. But the actual case involves the claims that Arbery was (1) trespassing, (2) that he was seen "on camera" on prior occasions, and (3) there had been prior crimes in the neighborhood.

    I fully grant that simply stating 1-3 still makes the pursuit--not to mention how it unfolded--seem dumb. But there's a significant moral distinction between dumb and racist. And a lot of this hinges on the second point: the claim that Arbery was seen on camera on prior occasions. Whether that claim is true and what exactly that media shows makes a significant difference in their epistemic warrant, doesn't it?

    On a less relevant note: it's been seen as significant that only 1 crime was reported in the neighborhood between January 1st and February 23rd. David apparently thinks this is so significant that he says "Thank God" that we have this information... But I'm confused as to why David and Sarah think January 1st is the relevant cut-off date? I've lived in neighborhoods with break-ins and my relevant frame of reference for concern over when the next one might happen wasn't 2 months... but maybe that's just me. Or maybe there is some law about relevant time-frames for counts?

    Of course, maybe it will turn out that within the last six months there was only one crime reported. Okay, that would be more meaningful, I agree. But that information isn't what David points to as so significant.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      John Bowling

      I'd like to change my mind on something here. Above, I said "I fully grant that simply stating 1-3 still makes the pursuit--not to mention how it unfolded--seem dumb. But there's a significant moral distinction between dumb and racist."

      After thinking about it more, I think I've made too coarse grained a distinction between dumb, evil, and racist. Obviously racially motivated action is not the only type of action that is evil. Reckless actions that endanger the lives of others can also be evil, when the risk of endangerment is sufficiently evident. And a citizen arming themselves and chasing someone in these circumstances seems like an obvious case of reckless action where the risk of endangering another's life was sufficiently evident (that it was evident was, ironically, probably why they armed themselves in the first first place - thus compounding their recklessness).

      Thus, if the McMichaels’ behavior was dumb and reckless then it was evil, because it is the sort of recklessness that had a non-negligible chance of endangering the life of an innocent person.

      Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Jacob Alexander

    I was very much looking forward to this interview and appreciated that this wasn't a kid gloves show interview. Did anyone else (including the interviewers?) have a moment of 'uh-oh, here we go again' at the end of the foreign policy question on China when the Congressman led with "the connection dropped at the end of that, but I think I can answer". Thankfully, he seemed to still speak clearly and offer critique, but I admit to rolling my eyes when I heard it. Am I the only one?

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Will

    Another compliment for David French: I appreciate the thorough review of the facts and law, prior to commenting. I am a litigator; friends often ask me to comment on big-news crime/litigation stories. I always tell them I only know what I've seen on the news ... which is nowhere near enough to comment intelligently. More people should take the thoughtful approach David takes.

    Collapse
  8. ROBERT

    This podcast is a great example of why all of the podcasts from the Dispatch always lift my spirits- no matter the topic or guest. I simply love being reminded that yes, thoughtful, intelligent, well reason, humble, and objective people actually do still exit in the public arena.
    Being reminded of that - daily - is such a welcomed experience!
    Thanks to everyone at The Dispatch!

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Joe Delanis

    Sarah and David:

    I would be interested to hear your opinion about whether the Arbrey case should be prosecuted under Georgia homicide statutes, or federal civil-rights violation statutes, specifically 18 USC 241 or 18 USC 242?

    I share your horror with this - "tragedy" doesn't do it justice. While it wouldn't undo what happened or bring Mr. Arbrery back to life, he deserves no less than making sure his murderers suffer the most severe punishment under the law. And I'd like to know, based on both of y'all's training and experience, who between Georgia or the Feds would have a better chance of yielding the toughest penalty?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Will

      Or both? (Not usually where I'm at philosophically, but dang... this is bad)

      Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Colten Mitchell

    This is the first time I have heard him speak at length and it confirms my preliminary thoughts: that he is a step up from the usual fare for the LP, and would look great by comparison on a debate stage with the other two.

    Collapse
Load More