Texas Elementary School Shooting, as many as 22 dead, including Children

[gondrin]

Look, everyone knows that children being around people in flamboyant clothes/makeup is infinitely more dangerous than children being around weapons designed to kill people. That's just common sense.

Didn't you know that having to talk to your children leads to them learning stuff about you that you would want to keep hidden? I mean far right wingers wouldn't want their kids to know they are bigots in any way. To them, it is easy to explain why a gun does what it does. It takes time to explain why a guy might like another guy as more then friends or why a person would want to dress up in non standard clothes for their sex and since they don't know that themselves, they can't explain it.

- - - Updated - - -

[Poopymonster]

Look, everyone knows that children being around people in flamboyant clothes/makeup is infinitely more dangerous than children being around weapons designed to kill people. That's just common sense.

On one hand the kids might actually think gay is ok (lord have mercy). On the other hand, grooooooooooooooomers (gasp). On the gripping hand, dead kids will NEVER be gay adults (The crowd goes wild).

This about sums it up.

[Pannonian]

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.

Isn't jury nullification exactly that? Jury setting themselves up to be above the law? Afaik that's a reality.

[PhaelixWW]

Isn't jury nullification exactly that? Jury setting themselves up to be above the law? Afaik that's a reality.

The whole scenario is preposterous in the main. No DA would proffer accessory charges against the local cops, and even if they did, no jury would find the local cops guilty of it, and even if they did, no judge would allow that verdict to stand.

[Pannonian]

The whole scenario is preposterous in the main. No DA would proffer accessory charges against the local cops, and even if they did, no jury would find the local cops guilty of it, and even if they did, no judge would allow that verdict to stand.

Yeah mate, i never thought that would happen, my point was that there is a way for a jury to overrule the law, and this is legal.

Not talking about how the DA should do this, simply that the argument "jury cannot overrule law" is wrong.

Of course you're right - even if the jury would go with it, the judge could just throw the verdict out of the window, still the possibility exists - and the jury very well can overrule law (see lynching murderers going free)

[PhaelixWW]

Yeah mate, i never thought that would happen, my point was that there is a way for a jury to overrule the law, and this is legal.

Except that jury nullification always goes the other direction: finding the defendant "not guilty". It's largely a thing only because it's difficult for the DA to appeal a "not guilty" verdict, so it presents a fait accompli, unlike finding a ridiculous "guilty" verdict which would instantly be challenged and thrown out on appeal (if it even lasted that long).

[Pannonian]

Except that jury nullification always goes the other direction: finding the defendant "not guilty". It's largely a thing only because it's difficult for the DA to appeal a "not guilty" verdict, so it presents a fait accompli, unlike finding a ridiculous "guilty" verdict which would instantly be challenged and thrown out on appeal (if it even lasted that long).

Again, i'm talking about the theory, not what happens in practice - and (in theory) it could happen the other way round (jury finding a person guilty although they aren't) which, of course, would be thrown out by the judge so there is no relevancy in reality - sure, i'll give you that.

Still, my point was - and i try it for a third time now - that the argument "jury cannot overrule law" is simply not true.

[wunksta]

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.

This is also being pushed while the Southern Baptist Convention is being investigated. If someone cares more about drag queens rather than actual abuse, then it's not about protecting children.

[P for Pancetta]

Who do we keep getting these big threads about these topics?

Because lets be real this happens every other week and lets be realer Americans don't care about this at all. If you'd really cared something would've been done already. just saying those other guys are preventing all progress isn't a real argument. Either you go out there and work to change this or just shut up about it.

This whole peace and prayers show is sickening. America has a sick culture and that's not just the republicans

[downnola]

Who do we keep getting these big threads about these topics?

Because lets be real this happens every other week and lets be realer Americans don't care about this at all. If you'd really cared something would've been done already. just saying those other guys are preventing all progress isn't a real argument. Either you go out there and work to change this or just shut up about it.

This whole peace and prayers show is sickening. America has a sick culture and that's not just the republicans

Yeah that's a cool story and everything but let me know when Democrats block an attempt to regulate gun sales, let alone ban AR-15s.

[P for Pancetta]

Yeah that's a cool story and everything but let me know when Democrats block an attempt to regulate gun sales, let alone ban AR-15s.

Thanks for YOUR excuse, can't say I care much for it. What have you done specifically except vote democrat? nothing? then you have no right to complain. You're part of the problem.

[unfilteredJW]

Who do we keep getting these big threads about these topics?

Because lets be real this happens every other week and lets be realer Americans don't care about this at all. If you'd really cared something would've been done already. just saying those other guys are preventing all progress isn't a real argument. Either you go out there and work to change this or just shut up about it.

This whole peace and prayers show is sickening. America has a sick culture and that's not just the republicans

BoTh SiDeS!!

[P for Pancetta]

BoTh SiDeS!!

Yes both sides, Ofc the republican's are much worse, but just sitting there looking at them being idiots not doing anything while children get murdered every week? and the best you come up with is this disgusting shit? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!

Blaming others never solved any issue.

[Ripster42]

Yes both sides, Ofc the republican's are much worse, but just sitting there looking at them being idiots not doing anything while children get murdered every week? and the best you come up with is this disgusting shit? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!

Blaming others never solved any issue.

I can't tell if this is ironic or not.

[unfilteredJW]

Yes both sides, Ofc the republican's are much worse, but just sitting there looking at them being idiots not doing anything while children get murdered every week? and the best you come up with is this disgusting shit? YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM! BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS!

Blaming others never solved any issue.

Just keep layering on the clown make up little fella.

[Endus]

The whole scenario is preposterous in the main. No DA would proffer accessory charges against the local cops, and even if they did, no jury would find the local cops guilty of it, and even if they did, no judge would allow that verdict to stand.

Are you describing how corrupt the American legal system is, or are you still pushing the false narrative that my position is somehow factually ridiculous?

Because here's Texas law on the equivalent of "accessory" charges;

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.htm

Sec. 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if:

(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;


(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or


(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.


(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

Sure seems like 7.02 (a)(3) fits the frickin' circumstances to a T. The officers had a legal duty to stop the shooter; we've been over that their training and obligation in a mass shooter situation was, above all else, to confront and stop the shooter, which they clearly chose not to. They acted with intent to assist the commission of the crime, by barring others from stopping the shooter. And they failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense, and given that they sat around for more than an hour, I'm pretty darned sure that qualifies.

Now, will they be charged? Of course not. It's the USA, and cops get away with crimes all the time because corruption runs fuckin' deep. But that's a statement on how thoroughly corrupt the Texas legal system is and how the cops get away with crimes all the time, not that their actions were not criminal.

[Lanrefni]

Are you describing how corrupt the American legal system is, or are you still pushing the false narrative that my position is somehow factually ridiculous?

Because here's Texas law on the equivalent of "accessory" charges;

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.htm



Sure seems like 7.02 (a)(3) fits the frickin' circumstances to a T. The officers had a legal duty to stop the shooter; we've been over that their training and obligation in a mass shooter situation was, above all else, to confront and stop the shooter, which they clearly chose not to. They acted with intent to assist the commission of the crime, by barring others from stopping the shooter. And they failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense, and given that they sat around for more than an hour, I'm pretty darned sure that qualifies.

Now, will they be charged? Of course not. It's the USA, and cops get away with crimes all the time because corruption runs fuckin' deep. But that's a statement on how thoroughly corrupt the Texas legal system is and how the cops get away with crimes all the time, not that their actions were not criminal.

In a sane world you'd be right,except we live in the insane world where the Supreme Court found cops have no duty to assist. :/

[P for Pancetta]

Just keep layering on the clown make up little fella.

I can't tell if this is ironic or not.

It's not ironic, you can't just have this thing happen every week for years on end without anything being done to stop it, and then just point to the other side and say you tried your best. At some point you're going to have to take responsibility for the fact that you are an American and that if you want things to change you need to act. Just whining on a forum is just tiring for everyone else who did act and who doesn't have these issues as a result of it.

You're here telling me I'm a clown, all the while children in your nation get butchered on the weekly and you're just sitting on your ass doing nothing. You are the clown son.

[Edge-]

It's not ironic, you can't just have this thing happen every week for years on end without anything being done to stop it, and then just point to the other side and say you tried your best.

When the "other side" literally refuses to do anything, yes you god-damned can.

At some point you're going to have to take responsibility for the fact that you are an American and that if you want things to change you need to act.

This completely ignores the political structure and makeup of the American government, and the outsized influence many small, conservative states play.

Just whining on a forum is just tiring for everyone else who did act and who doesn't have these issues as a result of it.

Many of us have. We help elect folks who want to get things done on this front, but we can't elect folks from other states.

You're here telling me I'm a clown, all the while children in your nation get butchered on the weekly and you're just sitting on your ass doing nothing. You are the clown son.

No, people are pointing out, seemingly accurately, that you have a gross misunderstanding of how this country actually works.

[gondrin]

Are you describing how corrupt the American legal system is, or are you still pushing the false narrative that my position is somehow factually ridiculous?

Because here's Texas law on the equivalent of "accessory" charges;

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/PE/htm/PE.7.htm



Sure seems like 7.02 (a)(3) fits the frickin' circumstances to a T. The officers had a legal duty to stop the shooter; we've been over that their training and obligation in a mass shooter situation was, above all else, to confront and stop the shooter, which they clearly chose not to. They acted with intent to assist the commission of the crime, by barring others from stopping the shooter. And they failed to make any reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense, and given that they sat around for more than an hour, I'm pretty darned sure that qualifies.

Now, will they be charged? Of course not. It's the USA, and cops get away with crimes all the time because corruption runs fuckin' deep. But that's a statement on how thoroughly corrupt the Texas legal system is and how the cops get away with crimes all the time, not that their actions were not criminal.

Problem is the Supreme Court makes this point moot. I'm all for them getting charged with being accessories but the Supreme Court made it clear that peace officers have no legal duty to protect another or prevent a crime from happening.

That is why I stated earlier in the thread that the most that will come out of it is 1 or 2 people getting fired and a payout from the city to the victims that won't be public.