u/Some_Old_Man_Fishin

>Our audience had an impassioned response to Audrey Moorehead’s dissent in yesterday’s edition. Some of the criticism was in bounds — people sharing their firsthand experiences with law enforcement or ICE and their view that complying doesn’t guarantee safety. Some of the responses were gross: Attacks on Audrey for being too young, too white, too privileged, too Christian, or the wrong sex to have an informed opinion on this issue. Or, worse, allegations that she didn’t care about innocent people being murdered.

>I was, frankly, a little disgusted by the overall tenor of the response from this community I cherish so much and that is so often elevating good-faith dialogue — the ratio of good-faith arguments to ugly, personal attacks was discouraging. I told Audrey I wanted to write something in response from the perspective of someone who disagreed with her, but she offered some wisdom of her own: My trying to defend her would only reinforce the idea that she was too young or helpless to articulate her own positions. So, I asked her to write a brief follow-up and response.

>Before you read it, I’ll just offer this: Writing dissents is incredibly hard. You are forced to put hours of conversation and closed-door editorial debate into a few brief sentences. It’s a new feature in the newsletter, and one lesson I’m taking from this experience is that we should (maybe) give them more space when it’s appropriate.

>— Executive Editor Isaac Saul

Associate Editor Audrey Moorehead:

>First and foremost, I regret that I did not make it much more clear how truly narrow my dissent was. While I did not argue that ICE agents were not at fault in these killings, it’s clear now I should have explicitly stated my position. The use of deadly force is acceptable in only the most dangerous and threatening situations, and I have thus far seen no evidence that the incidents we covered yesterday rose to that standard. I hope these DHS agents are taken off the force while a full investigation takes place, and in the meantime, I’m praying for the families of the victims.

>However, I also want to be clear that I stand by my stated position. I absolutely would not fight or attempt to flee if law enforcement sought to detain me. There are four common responses to perceived threats: Fight, flight, freeze, or fawn. I have developed my natural response of fawning, freezing, or de-escalation as a woman who has faced real threats of physical violence from men. As a general rule, women understand that most men are stronger than we are; that men with ill intent abound; and that even though we deserve complete and total safety, we still must take precautions in the event that safety is compromised. My precautions include not walking alone at night; texting friends and family when going on dates; and, when faced with a situation in which I sense danger, remaining calm and attempting to defuse the situation before seeking outside help.

>While this is my natural response developed from my own experiences, it is also legal experts’ recommended response for individuals facing ICE detainment. The American Civil Liberties Union advises, “Stay calm. Don’t run, argue, resist, or obstruct the officer, even if you believe your rights are being violated. Keep your hands where police can see them… Stay calm and do not resist or obstruct the agents or officers. Do not lie or give false documents. Prepare yourself and your family in case you are arrested. Memorize the phone numbers of your family and your lawyer. Make emergency plans if you have children or take medication.” The National Immigration Law Center recommends: “Stay calm. Do not run away or try to stop the agents.”

>Failing to react in the expert-recommended manner is not the same as culpability for what happens to you; obviously, in the heat of the moment, people can react very differently, which was both the point of Isaac’s hypothetical and the point of my dissenting response. Furthermore, reacting in the recommended manner does not guarantee one’s safety, which I explicitly acknowledged. These truths can co-exist with the fact that sometimes, in order to preserve one’s life, one must endure temporary injustice; and acknowledging the advantage of preserving life by enduring that injustice is not the same as saying the injustice should continue.