Weaponized Vehicles

Recently, we have heard an increase in claims that cars are deadly weapons; specifically, from ICE claims that someone driving a car near them constitutes a "weaponized" vehicle and thus a justification for lethal force.

Now, no one will be surprised that I do believe cars can be dangerous, even deadly. We should have fewer on the roads. 

But I want to discuss how despite that a car is not, inherently, a weapon--and discussions of "weaponized vehicles" are actually the opposite of a helpful discussion of the real dangers of cars.

1. Cars Are Dangerous, But Not Weapons

I'm not claiming someone cannot run someone else over if they choose to use their car that way. But what makes cars dangerous in the aggregate isn't deliberate road rage or ramming of people the driver is targeting. It's the sheer speed and lack of care with which they are typically driven, and the way our system bends around them.

Stationary, it isn't a threat.

Practically speaking, that goes to the absurdity of the claims of weaponizing cars in Minneapolis: those cars have usually been stopped and just starting up, which is when they are least dangerous.

Cars are dangerous because of their speed, weight, and the way they get or assume right of way in all situations; to claim they are most weaponized when least actually being driven is ridiculous.

2. Definitions Get Hypocritical Fast

In recent years, several states made it easier for drivers to defend themselves legally from driving through protests. Or in plainer language, they've made it legal to run over protesters (in some cases).

The idea that it's OK to run people over when they're protesting, but a "weaponized vehicle" to drive anywhere near an ICE agent, is sheer hypocrisy. One is clearly a greater danger; it's the one where the car is moving faster and the direct impact with a human being is intended, rather than merely possible (or even being avoided).

Protesters do not have fewer rights (or at least should not) than immigration enforcement does. If a car is a weapon to one, it cannot logically not be a weapon to the other.

And yet, here we are.

And in an additional hypocrisy, of course, in the US the right to keep and bear arms is actually in the constitution; if a car is a weapon, that should not mean a reduction in the driver's rights.

3. Who Actually Hits Who?

Remember how I said cars don't usually ram people? The exception, ironically, is law enforcement. And claims that ICE cars are getting rammed are highly questionable.

Indeed, in several cases it seems ICE had claimed to have been rammed but may actually have done the ramming (as part of their larger habit of violent arrests).

So if a car is being weaponized--who is really doing it?

All in all, the claims that cars are dangerous are true--but they're not true in the way they're being presented. I'm all for changing our attitudes towards cars for being dangerous. But not in this way!