But they forcibly prevented the parents from protecting their own children. It’s fine to say you won’t protect and serve but by preventing the parents from going in should be some degree of murder. How the fuck could good Samaritan laws work if the people are required to act.
They can literally shoot innocent people for no reason and not get charged with murder. you think they are gonna get charged with ‘some degree of murder’?
The officers literally instructed hiding children through the door to shout for help during an active shooter situation
This resulted in the direct death of at least one child that would otherwise have survived
The cops literally caused more dead kids than if they never showed up at all, indicated by the parent who fucking Metal Geared past the police line to extract their kids
Not to even mention how their messaging post-incident indicated the cops killed kids with indiscriminate shooting
Which means that every single time you see police protecting nazis, it’s because they chose to. Uvalde was police showing us who they don’t want to protect.
Generally speaking, any person can take anyone to court for any reason, and any prosecutor can charge anyone for any reason.
Once it gets to court is where the “but your honor the Supreme Court said X Y Z” comes into it. And in a lot of cases that’ll get you off, and in a lot of cases that will mean the prosecutor won’t even try because the law is so clear that it would just be a waste of everyone’s time to make the attempt. But, the circumstances of the case and a compelling counter argument can make that not the only outcome, and the judge and jury have a lot of leeway up to and including “hey you know what I think the Supreme Court got it wrong as hell in this case, guilty guilty guilty.”
When it’s fairly applied (which is, certainly, not even close to all the time) it’s actually a very good system.
Precedents get overturned from time to time, and the way that generally happens is when a new case comes along challenging that precedent.
Maybe this goes nowhere. Maybe a conviction gets overturned on appeal. But maybe we could see a new precedent set. Might as well try, you’re probably not going to find a better case to do it any time soon.
Wouldn’t the establishment of a new precedent require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling though? I’m not super familiar with the judicial system, so perhaps someone could tell me if I’m on the right track here with this hypothetical series of events
Charges filed
Defense motions to dismiss case on grounds that police don’t have to protect anyone
Prosecution counters that that’s not necessarily what they are arguing here
Judge at the lowest level with jurisdiction decides to allow the case to proceed based on prosecutions argument that they aren’t litigating settled law
Trial
Defendants found guilty
Defense files an immediate appeal and a stay of sentence because they still feel like their clients are protected by precedent
Repeat until Supreme Court gets a writ of certiorari asking them to take up the appeal
If SCOTUS accepts the case, they will decide if A) the defense IS actually protected by precedent in this scenario B) whether previous precedent is constitutional and C) the ultimate fates of the defendents 9.1 If SCOTUS does not take up the case, the lower court’s decisions are affirmed and that becomes legal precedent.
Is that a probably series of events? Obviously the suit being allowed to continue and the defendents being found guilty are huge assumptions, but, assuming they come to pass, am I on the right track here?
Seems he resigned from that department but I can’t find anything about him other than a piece talking about his wife since then. Nothing about his stance on policing, his job, etc.
Local media said the 25-year-old man had been accused of assault, adding that he knew the girl was under 16, the age of consent in Japan.
A litany of base-related woes has long grieved Okinawans, from pollution and noise to helicopter crashes and COVID-19 outbreaks, leading to complaints that they bear the brunt of hosting troops.
The 1995 gang rape of a 12-year-old girl by three U.S. soldiers in Okinawa prompted widespread calls for a rethink of a 1960 pact that outlined the legal status of Japan-based U.S. military personnel.
That 1995 thing was a huge fucking deal at the time. It came out that shit like that happened before more than once and the army protected the perpetrators. But that particular potato was just too fucking hot and those fuckers did time in a Japanese prison.
Might’ve been the incident that made me realize the rest of the world might not think we are big damn heroes.
I did that in my high school economics class. I picked a bunch of finance stocks, including Bear Stearns. Then 2008 happened. All I learned was that if you pick individual stocks, you get fucked. For individual investors, the stock market is a scam.
Not so much for stocks, I mean like a better UI spreadsheet client that allows them to go to any period and see ledgers that are intuitively rendered and that lets them sort of experiment with the numbers so they can learn to maneuver things better. Like all their accounts, bills/recurring, paycheques, purchases. All rendered and projected or archived for easy traversal
Its like GTD: get everything out and externalized in an independant system or locus of reference and it takes most of the anxiety and human error out of it
For individual investors, individual stocks are not a worthwhile risk. Buy a broad scale index fund, realize you won’t get rich but you also won’t lose it all, and build for your retirement.
You learned the wrong lesson based on your timing. I’ve invested in like 2013 and I’m so far up six digits. Sure, I dipped during the pandemic, but I sold my bonds and bought more stock which makes me up bigly now.
Sixty-two Democrats joined 207 Republicans in supporting the amendment, while Democratic leadership, which typically offers a suggestion on which way to vote, gave “no recommendation.”
We got to have more standards than “not a Republican”.
These assholes in sheep clothing aren’t on our side.
Like, it doesn’t matter if you’re at “the cool table” if Nazis start sitting down and no one throws them out, you don’t keep fucking sitting with the Nazis. You start a new table.
What is wrong with you? It's very clear that the issue that makes organizing in the Texas 33rd is the extreme gerrymandering. What question did you think you were answering when you confidently answered "the interenet"? Were you just saying random shit hoping no one would call you out on your bullshit?
Look, they’re apparently never wrong about anything and when they say “the internet,” they mean it. Fact. End of.
Edit: and reading below, it’s gone from “you can use the internet to organize to fix a problem like Texas’ third district’s gerrymandering” to “the internet has been used to organize people politically sometimes.” Very helpful and relevant!
A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important question.[1] It may be either a logical fallacyor a literary device that leads readers or audiences toward a false conclusion. A red herring may be used intentionally, as in mystery fiction or as part of rhetorical strategies (e.g., in politics), or may be used in argumentation inadvertently.[2]
How can you organize voters with a district like the Texas 33rd?
I said “the internet”…
That was “my claim”.
That “the Internet” is how you would organize people in a sprawling district because that doesn’t rely on geography and in person meetings. It’s also just how you do shit now.
Then you asked me:
Let’s see evidence of “the internet” solving extreme gerrymandering
And acting that I claimed it could. When I never said that because I was answering a completely different question.
The only way that makes sense, is if you dont know what me or that other person was talking about.
Um I can think of a few differences but I think the major one is that one of the geriatric fucks actually promised to end democracy in the US.
So, maybe don’t back his team?
Well if it ends up in civil war, can you at least launch the nukes and end the whole world as well, I’m kind of done being alive and going out with everyone else is probably the best excuse for not continuing on.
I think it’s kind of impressive that even with his obvious vulnerability they still needed to blow the campaign out of the water with the money they spent. Progressivism is popular. Working for the people is popular.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.