You'll get no argument from me. I have no problem with some officers being trained to deal specifically with students (read: not, not, not like cops normally deal with criminals), but making them a separate department entirely is just stupid, and placing them in charge of an active shooter incident over, say, the local SWAT department or pretty much any other group of more highly trained officers, is just asinine. It's a completely different skill-set entirely.
All this did was put a guy who wasn't cut out for the role in a place where he likely felt like he couldn't give up command without admitting to all and sundry that he couldn't do the single most important job he had to do.
Regular taxes are one thing. There are all sorts of those that exist and aren't considered unconstitutional by the courts. Punitive taxes (such as a 1000% tax) are another thing entirely.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
I don't think anything will be done in congress most of these bills are stunts, however it's rather dumb that democrats around the country aren't passing Texas style abortion laws for guns. Anyone who sees a citizen with (insert gun here) is allowed to sue them for $10,000 plus lawyer fees. The republicans have given us the framework for tons of laws like this on every issue.
It's yet another reminder that democratic impotence is a feature not a bug.
You're talking out of your ass. I phrased it with "emotional argument" to make it sound nicer, but really you're just talking out of your ass. Legally speaking, this ain't acessory, as I've explained to you once already. That you disagree with it is fine, but ultimately it's troubling how far you'd bend the law just to be able to call this accessory to murder. Apparently going to the appropriate criminal charge is not good enough for you.
I'm not asking you to react to anything. I'm educating you about the consequences of applying the wrong law to an action. Your case would get dismissed. Because you do not meet the criteria. At least not in a civilised legal system, the US is all kinds of fucked up, so who knows what goes in there. But since you're Canadian, I can assume that the basic legal principles you know are the same that I'm arguing from.
And you keep trying to make an argument that officers preventing other people from entering the building have the same motivation as the shooter. Which is necessary for you to call them an accessory. That is an absolutely idiotic notion. Go ahead and explain to me how the motivating factor for them to stop people entering the building is "so the shooter can continue killing as many people as possible."
You don't have an argument. Stop talking out of your ass and come back to legal reality.
My accusation isn't baseless. I see no legal or rational argument supporting your point. Thus, the only reason for you to irrationally hold on to a criminal charge that can't possibly apply must be "for the name of it". And there we return to the American problem of people making arguments and using buzzphrases to provoke an emotional reaction instead of actually coming to the correct conclusions. I think I'm closer to my point that you're asking for blood than you are to making a believable argument that they are an accessory to murder.
Justice means you apply the law properly. Anything else is just lynch mob "justice".
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
So what I'm getting from this School District police force is that arming schools is, in fact, more dangerous for students and faculty. Conservative politics killed those kids.
In a "civilized legal system", you file all the charges you think are appropriate, and let the jury determine which are legitimate. If you're unsure you can make accessory charges stick, you also charge dereliction of duty and criminal neglect. It isn't a case where you need to pick, in the first place, and any system which does require you to pick is turning the law into a type of game and I'm gonna struggle to see that as "civilized".
They weren't doing it to protect those people; parents were getting tazed and arrested. Once that's off the table, what's left?And you keep trying to make an argument that officers preventing other people from entering the building have the same motivation as the shooter. Which is necessary for you to call them an accessory. That is an absolutely idiotic notion. Go ahead and explain to me how the motivating factor for them to stop people entering the building is "so the shooter can continue killing as many people as possible."
I'm literally suggesting applying charges and letting a jury determine guilt in the courts.Justice means you apply the law properly. Anything else is just lynch mob "justice".
You're the one demanding certain charges not be filed because you don't personally agree with them, which is you trying to force your judgement of the circumstances onto the situation rather than rely on the justice system.
I'm not demanding summary pre-conviction on all charges or something ridiculous. I'm literally advocating for the application of the law through normal channels, and that's what you're calling me out for.
In what capacity?
Once upon a time, hall monitors were common in schools. They would roam the halls to make sure kids weren't misbehaving. No guns, no government authority. Just a person hired by the school to look out for trouble makers while teachers were teaching in their classrooms.
I'd rather that than officers of any kind.
- - - Updated - - -
Not that marijuana had anything to do with it, but...Murder was the case that they gave him.
To your point though, yeah, about 1/2 our nation has used, or continues to use marijuana. If it were the cause of violent crime, it would be chaos. But it is not.
RIP Genn Greymane, Permabanned on 8.22.18
Your name will carry on through generations, and will never be forgotten.
I didn't specify resource officers. But the police will get called to school on occasion for a number of reasons, and I wouldn't mind if the ones who did actually show up were specifically trained in a less aggressive approach than they would otherwise use for adult criminals.
I'm not talking about an active shooter situation or anything, but most lesser reasons, sure.
"The difference between stupidity
and genius is that genius has its limits."
--Alexandre Dumas-fils
Ah yes, Reefer Madness. Not admitting anything, but I'm "pretty sure" that's complete fiction. Also, one-half plus one. Allegedly.
On topic: while funerals continue and a few children who somehow survived the average American with a weapon of war in the same room as them trying to murder them are getting out of the hospital, this Texas source details how Texas is looking for literally anything to blame other than "the average American can easily get a weapon whose original design was to kill human beings, but has since become a civilian weapon to make murder far easier".
A lot of it reads as an OP ED but it's not listed as such. Here's the part I found important enough to cite:
Neither 10% nor 20% are massive, but every non-murdered child is a step in the right direction.A majority of Texans support requiring background checks for gun purchases, including at gun shows or through private sellers — which aren’t regulated in Texas — according to a 2021 poll by the University of Texas at Austin. In February, 43% of Texans surveyed told the university that the state should strengthen gun laws, with only 16% seeking looser gun laws.
Studies and experts from various fields say less controversial steps short of an assault weapons ban would have an impact on all gun violence. Those include raising the age for legal purchase of a long arm from 18 to 21, as is typically the case for handguns, or banning large-capacity magazines, a move studies have shown can at least limit fatalities in mass shootings.
Experts also point to successes with red flag laws, which allow courts to temporarily take guns away from people judged to be a danger to themselves or others, and safe storage laws that require firearms to be locked when stored. They have also urged implementing universal background checks.
James Alan Fox, a criminologist at Northeastern University who has long studied mass killings, said the policy changes are the right things to do, but not only for mass shootings.
“If we reduce mass shootings by 10%, we can reduce homicides by 20%,” he said.
The bolded above is worth noting, in the sense that it probably wouldn't have helped in this specific case due to the 30-minute window someone in apparently Germany would have needed to not just find a local law enforcement officer, but one who'd actually respond. Which, as we've seen recently, is not an assured thing -- police officers don't always respond to the average American with a weapon of war because they might, you know, die. I did earlier mention the Tulsa shooting, and that window was much larger. It might have saved five lives, including the shooter.
Might.
I'll be honest, I don't know how "red-flag laws" are supposed to work. I'm guessing it's not as simple as a 1-800 tip line per state which this doctor could have called to say "Hey, on the off-chance this one of my many patients gets a gun, he's probably irate and you might want to take it before he kills me with it". That said, it would not bother me in the least if some kind of law existed to handle the proven number of mass murders in which the time between "person legally gets a high-powered semi-auto rifle and enough rounds to embarrass Leon Kennedy" and "aforementioned rounds are removed by a coroner" is nation-embarrassingly short. Again, I don't know if even my local NYState police could get to my NYState door in 30 minutes if, say, a student phoned in a fraudulent tip (as I have no gun), and more importantly I don't know what counts as "probable cause" because even I can fake a FB message screenshot and claim it's real.
I wonder if a cop stopping by saying "hey, you okay? Someone asked us to check up on you because they were worried about your well-being" would be enough to put some people off the path. Even 5% wouldn't suck.
In a civilised legal system with people that actually know the law, it's expected that you do better than "throw shit at the wall and see what sticks." You have to have a remote chance of success. And the accessory charge here doesn't have any chance at sticking unless you have some - at least cursory - initial evidence of collaboration between shooter and the police force. Since you don't have that, that entire notion is irrational. This is just you going by feels. And it's not the judge's job to do the state attorney's job for him... might as well throw a law book at the jury and go "here, pick one!"
So, arresting in itself is not very dangerous. People get arrested for their own safety every day in all kinds of countries. Tazed is probably a bit borderline, but given how over-the-top typical police practice is in the US, I'd probably gauge that a friendly reminder to do what you're told.
A jury can't overrule law. That's not how it works. The jury will have to stick to something that makes sense, accessory doesn't. You're literally promoting an institutionalised version of lynch justice. That's beyond hilarious.
I don't have a skin in the game. I don't care what they charge anyone with, cos next week we'll be discussing another mass shooting. The US is a failed society at this point. What I'm saying is such a charge wouldn't stick. For the reasons I explained that you still have to refute. This isn't me personally disagreeing, this is part of the universal idea of accessory.
I'm calling you out for demanding ridiculous charges without any rational thought behind them.
Not sure how credible the source is, but here's one definition I found:
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedict....com/accessory
"[...] aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally."An accessory must knowingly promote or contribute to the crime. In other words, she or he must aid or encourage the offense deliberately, not accidentally. The accessory may withdraw from the crime by denouncing the plans, refusing to assist with the crime, contacting the police, or trying to stop the crime from occurring.
This is where your agument fails.
Last edited by Slant; 2022-06-06 at 08:18 PM.
Users with <20 posts and ignored shitposters are automatically invisible. Find out how to do that here and help clean up MMO-OT!
PSA: Being a volunteer is no excuse to make a shite job of it.
Accessory charges don't require collaboration. Just that you're aware of the criminal action and took action(s) to support the one committing the crime. Tripping a cop chasing a bank robber would make you an accessory, even if you didn't know the killer and only did it because you hate cops so much.
This is just circular reasoning. You've presumed the jury can't convict on accessory charges on the basis that you don't think the jury could convict on accessory charges.A jury can't overrule law. That's not how it works. The jury will have to stick to something that makes sense, accessory doesn't. You're literally promoting an institutionalised version of lynch justice. That's beyond hilarious.
No, government data does not say that defensive gun use saves lives
To debunk the latest Republican talking point. There remains zero data that having more guns makes anyone safer.
- - - Updated - - -The Justice Department published a report with the 1.5 million figure, but that was an estimate of the number of times people used guns to protect themselves, their families or their property. The author said the research did not find that the use was to save lives.
Another prominent gun researcher said he knows of no "scientifically based estimates of lives saved." A review of this kind of gun research concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that defensive gun use reduces harm to people.
The Justice Department’s article did not say what Biggs stated.
https://twitter.com/BryanforHD2/stat...20586048241669
What are local TX elected officials prioritizing? Is it gun control? Literally anything to prevent or stop more mass shootings? Maybe passing funding for more mental health care including school councilors?
No, they want to ban events where drag queens read books to children because they don't like them and don't want to go to them...which they already have the choice not to do, but apparently they think nobody else should have that choice.
Because of course Republicans would rather talk about LITERALLY ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE 19 KIDS AND 2 ADULTS JUST MASSACRED AND WHAT THEY SHOULD DO ABOUT IT.