As is tradition. How many times must this happen before we start holding cops accountable for their actions? How can you uphold the law while standing on top of it and pissing all over it?
If a nurse causes a malpractice that is on their license for years and other states detect it. Cops nothing. We should have their full history accessible to the public.
That is a Fund the Police position. More training doesn’t fix a lack of consequences. You have to take money and/or freedom away from them for doing bad things, or you’ll never see positive change.
Exactly. You were talking about the creation of large bureaucratic entities that would work hand in hand with police departments. What happens when police departments want to recruit. Maybe they can offer cheap loans to people who go to those universities. Maybe when officers retire, they can go work for those independent organizations that you’re talking about.
All of the above is expensive, all of it makes large law enforcement even more entrenched in society despite value or lack thereof, and none of it has anything to do with accountability or oversight. You’re proposing a solution that doesn’t even address the real problem.
I wasn’t expecting you to revive this discussion, but I’ll still talk about it. I was suggesting that the independent oversight board is funded by diverting police funds. For it to be independent, we’d have to prevent former cops and their families from being on the board. Since the independent board is responsible for issuing the police licenses, that would be pretty easy to track.
For the record, I’m not saying that this is the only solution either. To me, this is a large part of the overall solution for ending police violence. There are a lot of police reforms I want to see, but we have to start somewhere.
@stoly@inclementimmigrant Yeah, but he was a black airman, so sure, the deputy got fired, but I’m not holding my breath that he won’t just be hired by another force nearby and the whole thing swept away.
Dude even with charges, he might just have to go to a different state at most. But Florida’s pretty big he can probably just go to the other side of the state.
Sure but a black man was shot in Florida so I’m not holding out any hope here especially in that racist ass state that let a guy get away with killing a black kid over some skittles.
Death apologizes for making Dick Cheney shoot him in the face. “I thought it was his time but I was obviously wrong. I am very sorry for the inconvenience I caused and have agreed to take 5 others–” he pauses while an aide whispers in his ear, “–he sent more already!? I’ve agreed to take 32 others of his choosing to make it up to him.”
But, for once, the big news items have been mostly good. It’s a nice change in Lemmy, which - and I’m a lot happier here than on Reddit as the culture is less toxic - is inundated with mostly negative news. There are occasional good news posts, but they’re rarely national or world level impacts.
So two really big, globally impacting, effective (vs, e.g. ICC issues sternly worded letter saying it doesn’t like something) good news items in one day is great.
Trump’s civil trials: Half a billion in fines, lost ability to do business in New York.
Trump’s Jan 6 Federal case: stuck with SCOTUS deciding on presidential immunity by looking at polls in September.
Trump’s Stolent document case: postponed until an inept judge can figure out how to have a trial where one of the exhibits is “stolen plans to assassinat all current world leaders: CIA, do not distribute” without all world leaders catching wind.
Trump’s Georga interference case: Trying to get the other 10 defendants guilty before going after Trump
This was the only case that could have given him prison time before the election. Let’s see the judge screw it up.
I doubt he goes to prison. People who get in trouble for this sorta thing tend to not go to prison. But then again, this one involves a presidential election, so there is a chance.
Any normal person would be thrown in jail after 9 contempts. Not only Trump was still given an 11th chance, but the judge said explicitly it was because he is running. He literally has special treatment, an dis given much lighter punishments for his acts.
I can only assume this will be true for sentencing as well.
Its been a bizarre case because someones already bloody gone to prison for it, the guy he ordered to make the payments. And then they just…chose not to care about trumps involvement.
I doubt he goes to prison. People who get in trouble for this sorta thing tend to not go to prison.
Trump’s lawyer and fixer got 3 years in jail already for this crime. It was also his first offence. It would be pretty unfair to send the monkey to jail and not the organ grinder for the same crime.
You’re probably right though, Trump is clearly getting special treatment because of his proclivity to stochastic terrorism.
It doesn’t have to be prison, nobody really expects this trial will end with a prison sentence. I hope they find something way more helpful as this conviction was for election interference.
This was the only case that could have given him prison time before the election.
No judge in this country is sending a geriatric, senile, former president, beloved by a not-small segment of America, (a heavily armed and unstable segment) to prison. No judge is going to want that much attention and danger on themselves, nor will they want the historical scrutiny that will be cast on them for the rest of their lives. To say nothing of the guilt of starting civil unrest and deaths that will result.
Shit ain’t fair. We gotta deal and get on with it.
Trump has dodged or delayed every possible avenue for avoiding consequence and has a large amount of followers who support him so him not serving a sentence or being punished more harshly than a fine is just how the real world works unfortunately and everyone is going to have to accept and understand that we live alongside a large population who sees someone like Trump as deserving of being above the law. (Also, the logistics of detaining a former president with secret service in a state prison is a nightmare unlike anything we’ve dealt with, and the WORST we could expect is a house arrest but even then Trump could sue or appeal because he’s campaigning and can always say “I have the will of millions behind me” and he would be right. So maybe it’s time to stop focusing so hard on Trump and instead why millions of people support his freedom.)
Her mom told investigators that her daughter was possessed and said that God “took” Arely during the exorcism because she was not meant to be a mother.
...
The grandfather told police Claudia said her daughter ‘was not a normal girl.’ When Rene arrived at the ritual, Arely was alive, but her mom said she was going to die, he told investigators.
Defense attorneys have argued the suspects did not intend to kill Arely.
Sure sounds an awful lot like the mother planned for that poor kid to die.
And all this occurred within a church. Where are the charges against the church?
Aborting a pinhead sized embryo is murder in cold blood, but using religious delusions as a shaky excuse for a premeditated murder of an infant is just religious practice people can’t be held accountable for.
They’ll definitely be held accountable. To what degree I don’t know, but there has been precedent set to overrule religious expression in the event of murder.
Without some sort of long term strategy, it may not be.
I’ve always said this would be good if also paired with some moves to improve things longer term, because random infusions of lots of free money without any checks on the university side has already worked to make the education more outrageously expensive. Continuing the strategy without any sort of price management will make things work.
Same could be said of healthcare, if as much money as they ask for is provided to the pharmas and hospitals, they will ask for more and more. Relief must be paired with some sort of plan to mitigate that.
You can treat symptoms and then address longer term problems when able. It’s not like it would be better for these people just to keep paying because the current divided Congress won’t address the core problem.
As long as you address the root problem in the window of time before things get worse from this cash infusion. And to be honest, I don’t have much confidence in that happening.
I don’t think the US university system is going to rework their fees because 160,000 people got public-service or low-income related forgiveness. It’s not even giving money directly to schools or financial institutions. The worst case is people who plan to either be poor or do public service may be less cost conscious when applying to schools, but the PSLF and income-based payment programs already existed and more importantly 18 year olds are just completely clueless about what taking out a $100,000 loan means. People fetishize economics like it’s a perfect mathematical system where every dollar spent will yield results in some other part of the system while just outright ignoring all the complete irrationality that exists in consumer decisions.
I think an individual jolt of this magnitude will not necessarily move the needle, but I’ve heard commentary about this just being a regular presidential thing to do going forward, which would be a pretty inadequate and unpredictable way (each time binging on happenstance of election, assuming that at least one of them even wants to do the “tradition”). Might be unfair for me to think overmuch on those suggestions, but they always stick in my head in these conversations. Still find it odd that the executive branch should be able to do this sort of thing unilaterally.
These were all either existing programs or a new program that forgives loans that already weren’t being repaid (via existing IBR rules). This is “unpredictable” only insofar as the previous president refused to let the programs work.
Still find it odd that the executive branch should be able to do this sort of thing unilaterally.
He isn’t. He does have that ability (because Congress specifically gave it to the Executive in the Higher Education Act), but these are existing programs directed by Congress. The new group is just Biden automatically enrolling people who qualify in the old program.
Worry about loan forgiveness to businesses and rich people rather than to poor people and public servants. There’s corn and fuel subsidies costing way more than this that have perverted the economy and actively destroy the environment. People get really worried about the economic effects of poor people getting stuff like that’s coming directly out of their wallet when there’s so much larger and more direct issues that just get assumed as normal.
This is “unpredictable” only insofar as the previous president refused to let the programs work.
The end result was a promised program that didn’t work as intended and was unreliable. The details are a little less important than the results. However, I’m actually referring broadly to some folks that I saw saying that it should be some sort of presidential ‘ritual’ of forgiving debt, rather than being confined to select programs.
Worry about loan forgiveness to businesses and rich people rather than to poor people and public servants.
Note that I’m less concerned about the loan forgiveness, but instead worry about the “blank check” effect and future affordability and whether or not a student gets stuck with debt assuming they will get forgiven and then get screwed because a future administration refrains from doing so or interferes with ‘forgiveness’. I’d rather circumstances result in no significant debt at all, that government’s willingness to contribute happens up front and universities are somewhat held accountable for their costs to keep that affordable. We can also worry about the crap done for businesses and rich people, but the current situation kind of sucks for planning if you are poor, having to go into massive debt hoping maybe you’ll get in on some forgiveness down the line.
The end result was a promised program that didn’t work as intended and was unreliable. The details are a little less important than the results. However, I’m actually referring broadly to some folks that I saw saying that it should be some sort of presidential ‘ritual’ of forgiving debt, rather than being confined to select programs.
Then maybe you should have found a topic about that or referred to it specifically rather than just latching on to whatever debt-forgiveness news came up to air your grievances. It’s kind of obvious you’re not really concerned with whether a program is “unreliable” and just don’t like debt forgiveness, because all of these things exist with any program ever. The executive can sabotage it? That’s fucking everything. These are congressionally-passed laws establishing long running programs, there’s no “righter” way that means a hostile executive can’t sabotage it.
I hope so, but I’m pessimistic that even with full control that they have the political will to make reasonable reforms. Hoping I get to see what they do with full control for two years at least.
I was thinking more on the university side, some sort of strings attached to have universities a bit more mindful on expense. Waving interest is again a good thing for the borrowers, but it’s still a relatively blank check for the universities.
A few Australian universities attend college fairs in the USA, because even after you include the price of the flights, accommodation, and the uni itself, studying in Australia can still end up cheaper than the USA. Americans seem to love the idea of going to Australia, too.
I think community service in lieu of debt payment is a phenomenal idea as long as its fairly generous in waiving debt such that part time community service should be able to waive medical school debt.
They’ll hust do what my racist grandpa did and marry a Philippino woman he met online and move her to the country to care for him since all his children hated his guts.
“It gives the parents an opportunity to have kids in a society that otherwise puts emphasis on employment first, and family second… and we’ll need some of those kids to take care of you and wipe yo’ ass at the retirement home when you’ll be older.”
The people who make poor decisions impact you. They and their kids exist in your community. If you go to a store, do you want the cashier to know how to count? Do you want the person taking your order at a restaurant to know how to write?
More importantly, jobs are the best way to stop crime. Way better than police. Education is the best way to get people better jobs. Early childhood day care and kindergarten is the best education, as it starts children off early.
I can’t connect the dots any clearer for you. If you need help understanding this, maybe you could have benefitted from early childhood education yourself.
Hung jury for a guy who fired his rifle at a passing crowd and killed someone. They couldn’t even reach a verdict on a lesser charge. That means at least one jury member just thought that it wasn’t a crime to kill people because they were walking across your lawn.
First they come for your lawn, then they take your jobs and before you know it they’re turning your boys into girls to destroy the white whatever the small minded bigot in question thinks is the superior race.
/s
The sad irony is I’m being sarcastic but this is the core belief for way too many people out there.
edit: on further reflection of my choice of words I concluded that this is not a white vs black or brown problem, as nationalism and religious nationalism specifically, are not exclusive to delusions of race supremacy in the western world.
That means at least one jury member just thought that it wasn’t a crime to kill people because they were walking across your lawn.
Not Arizona, but Texas does let you kill people under some circumstances to stop them from, say, egging (throwing eggs at) your property, as that’d be criminal mischief:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41 (Protection of One’s Own Property); and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
The thing about jury’s is that people use their morals. If they don’t think a the crime should be a crime they may not want to comvict them even tho they know the person broke the law.
If I’m sitting on a Jury for someone arrested for feeding the homeless I will never vote to convict even if the evidence is as clear as day.
I’m not comparing shooting people to feeding the homeless buy just showing an example of why people don’t vote to convict when the evidence is clear.
Jury nullification (US/UK), jury equity[1][2] (UK), or a perverse verdict (UK)[3][4] occurs when the jury in a criminal trial gives a not guilty verdict regardless of whether they believe a defendant has broken the law. The jury's reasons may include the belief that the law itself is unjust,[5][6] that the prosecutor has misapplied the law in the defendant's case,[7] that the punishment for breaking the law is too harsh, or general frustrations with the criminal justice system. Some juries have also refused to convict due to their own prejudices in favor of the defendant.[8] Such verdicts are possible because a jury has an absolute right to return any verdict it chooses.[9]
I was on a jury in a civil case where the entire case was built on sympathy for the plaintiff. She’d been rear-ended at very low speed by a company owned truck and was suing the insurance company for >3 million dollars even though there were no injuries.
The plaintiff was a very elderly woman and she was brought in in a wheelchair, the accident was almost two years prior. They submitted volumes of medical records that couldn’t possibly be related to the accident but claimed somehow the accident had caused ‘suffering’ that manifested as medical issues that most 80 year olds face. I pointed out to the jury that one of the receipts was for the wheelchair she was sitting in and was dated only a week ago.
Myself and one other juror thought the 50K the company was offering was more than appropriate, but the rest of the jurors wanted to award the full 3 million. I was arguing with one of the other jurors about the amount and she said “If it was your grandmother, wouldn’t you just want to give her more money?”. I briefly tried to explain that wasn’t our role as jurors, but I kind of gave up after that- you can’t talk sense to sentiment. And since a civil case didn’t require unanimous jury she got the 3 million or whatever that was after her scummy legal team took their cut.
I will say the lawyer for the insurance company was a bumbling fool that didn’t seem to care one way or the other so that didn’t help, but it was clear to me this was just lawyers using an old lady and the legal system to pull money from a tap.
I’ve only been called once, and it was quite clear to me that the evidence they expected to present was shaky and circumstantial at best.
I took great pains to get myself excused, because I did not believe I could be impartial - ‘Not guilty’ means exactly that, the absence of proof of guilt. The state just didn’t have the goods, IMHO, and I’d have been forced to vote not guilty as a result - even if I thought the person did the thing they were accused of, the state wasn’t going to be able to prove it.
Wasn’t feeling being the ‘debating people who don’t understand the threshold for guilty’ part.
After the experience I had the one time, I’ll try to get kicked out of any and all jury trials. Also, my politics have moved quite far left and I couldn’t in good conscience contribute to someone being locked up without a hell of a lot of evidence of truly terrible harm.
Hung jury for a guy who fired his rifle at a passing crowd and killed someone. … That means at least one jury member just thought that it wasn’t a crime to kill people…
Is there one juror who was purported to be a Fox News viewer on Trump’s hush money trial? My cynical self sees a similar result coming there.
No, it just means there wasn’t enough evidence to convict beyond a reasonable doubt. People like to bring emotion and opinions to the jury room but in the end you are instructed to ONLY go by the evidence allowed in the courtroom.
Right, but the evidence was he said he shot someone for walking across his lawn. The facts of the case are not in dispute. He saw a bunch of people walking across his property, got his AK-47 rifle, and fired “warning shots” at them, killing man. That is what we know happened because there were many witnesses, including the defendant.
No. That’s what You know. That’s not the same with how things were presented in the courtroom. This is why people get so mad and don’t understand how a jury could come to said conclusion. I’ve been in several juries and this is how they work.
I mean sure prosecutors don’t always go after a case maybe the way they should, but it’d be pretty hard to believe that they wouldn’t be able to establish the admitted facts of the case. I would have to see something telling me that they neglected to inform the jury of the literal basis of the case before I give them a pass.
To use an example, this would you be like you arguing that the lawyers in the OJ Simpson trial failed because they neglected to tell the jury that OJ been accused of killing two people. That’s not messing up DNA evidence that’s literally why they’re there. It’s a stretch too far.
I’ve emailed local candidates and asked them how they voted on other elections (like who did you vote for president or in the primaries). They’ve responded. I have had some respond very vague, which I interpret as a bad sign, and others were very clear.
During the last elections here, the media sent out questionnaires to all of the school board candidates and half of them didn’t bother to respond.
The local subreddit crowdsourced background info on all the candidates and helped identify several of the wingnut wannabe authoritarians.
.
Though one did manage to get elected and almost immediately got suspended for acting like the racist she is during the meetings, and then freaking out when called out for her behaviour.
You might be shocked at how accessible local politicians can be. It astonishingly easy to get into local politics.
Show up, introduce yourself, shake hands, rinse and repeat. You’ll soon get to know who’s who and how the tides are moving. You’ll see who has influence, and why, learn from there.
LOL, you got me thinking about jumping back in. Locally, some people got together to fight an initiative we didn’t like. Nobody powerful or monied, but they won.
That happened with my local library system. We had a dipshit conservative try to ban pride displays. Turns out, even if this is a red county, the people who actually read books and care about public services don’t like that, and now knew to pay attention to local library politics. The hearing about it was packed, and she lost badly the next election.
I admit I didn’t consider voting in library board elections before, but now you bet I’m showing up.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.