It’s fine. Scotus will just say that the DOJ doesn’t have authority to file lawsuits without express congressional legislation on each individual matter.
That’s an awfully misleading situation. They state that her boyfriend’s gunshot caused her death, which I think most people would reasonably interpret to mean that her boyfriend shot her in the moment, but what they really mean is that if he hadn’t opened fire on police officers entering their home without prior warning, they wouldn’t have returned fire and killed her.
Edit: Never mind, I found it. Note that this is the newspaper’s phrasing. Apparently what the judge actually wrote is more technical and less misleading:
In his ruling, Judge Simpson wrote that the gunshot fired by Walker “became the proximate, or legal, cause of Taylor’s death.”
It’s still the same concept. The exciting incident is breaking and entering by the cops. Judge is still stating them entering illegally is not the cause which it is.
Judge Simpson said that “there is no direct link between the warrantless entry and Taylor’s death.”
What?! How does that make any sense? If the cops didn’t illegally enter her apartment without a warrant, Breonna would still be alive today. Cause meet effect. How is that not a direct link?
I think the legal principle here is that of a superseding cause. The case law on this matter is really complex and I, as someone who is NOT a lawyer, cannot comment on the merit of the judge’s decision. However, the case described in that Wikipedia article is illustrative:
if a defendant had carelessly spilled gasoline near a pile of cigarette butts in an alley behind a bar, the fact that a bar patron later carelessly threw a cigarette butt into the gasoline would be deemed a foreseeable intervening cause, and would not absolve the defendant of tort liability. However, if the bar patron intentionally threw the cigarette butt into the gasoline because he wanted to see it ignite, this intentional act would likely be deemed unforeseeable, and therefore superseding.
Wow that hurt my head. I read the rest of the Wikipedia page and I think I understand, but damn, I’ll need to read the judge’s full opinion to see just how creatively he applied that principle. Tort law is not for me.
That’s amazing. The bullet that struck the victim was not the cause of death, but the bullet before?
So if an LAPD officer goes to raid someone’s home, and a gangster kills a bystander, the officer is responsible? If he hadn’t gone out for the raid, the gangster would not have fired the weapon?
Wait but if the officers in Taylor’ case didn’t show up to the door, her boyfriend wouldn’t have fired the bullet. So it’s the police fault
So naturally they’re going to collect a shitload of money from them and the landlords using this scheme and use it to reimburse all of the people who were negatively affected by this illegal practice, right?
More seriously though, Hamas not mistreating her beyond the initial act of kidnapping makes sense. The entire purpose of taking hostages is to use the threat of harm as leverage. So there’s incentive to keep them in relatively good condition, because as soon as anything happens to them that leverage is lost. Of course, people don’t always remember that, and the whole thing relies on all parties involved at least pretending to act in good faith.
Because if Hamas executed the hostages, they’d have even less bargaining power than they already do. Unfortunately, Netanyahu doesn’t seem to care much about the hostages anyway.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.