829
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 28 points 2 days ago
[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 17 points 2 days ago

This is the only logical answer for this. Otherwise- their deaths mean nothing.

[-] dubious@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

the logical answer is something else entirely. definitely don't hold your breath for the state to make them accountable.

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 2 points 1 day ago

I I’m not. Because the american government follows no logic whatsoever.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

That's not logical? It doesn't even have a legal basis.

The real logical answer to bad government management is the French one - protest

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

And if protests dont work as they often dont, then what? The guillotine. Thats a french thing nest pas?

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe 2 points 2 days ago
[-] Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 2 days ago

We might be headed toward the same conditions that spawned the French revolution. I'm not in favor of that but once the wealth transfer gets to a certain point there's historical president to draw upon.

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe -1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

That isn’t going to happen. And in the very off chance that it does- the government is guaranteed the win, and the people will suffer.

Greatly.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The government is made of people. Those people might refuse to do their jobs too.

A protest is SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to happen than the original suggestion of charging state lawmakers with murder. There's no murder charge that would qualify.

[-] JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee 3 points 1 day ago

Reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

They were warned that women would die due these laws and they didn't listen. They recklessly put those laws there and people died... resulting in manslaughter.

I'd prefer homicide too, but I feel like manslaughter charges would stick better because you don't have to prove intent, just that someone died because of their actions.

[-] Soup@lemmy.cafe -1 points 2 days ago

Riiiiight. Well, have fun storming the castle. Just don’t make a mess on my street, okay? I don’t want to have to clean that shit up.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -2 points 2 days ago

Who? And on what legal grounds?

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

The state government. Legislature that drew up and ratified the murderous writs

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world -1 points 2 days ago

Okay, so is staff included in that? And what's the legal basis? What law could they be charged under for this?

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Depends on how involved they were in the laws creation. Probably not enough to matter though. Their bosses could be charged with involuntary manslaughter on an individual basis, conspiracy to commit murder as a group or individual.

[-] LustyArgonianMana@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Involuntary manslaughter would probably not stick as a charge

https://zealousadvocate.com/resources/law/involuntary-manslaughter-texas-legal-insights-and-real-world-perspectives/

Involuntary manslaughter refers to the unintentional killing of another person, usually through reckless behavior or negligence. It’s different from other homicide offenses because it doesn’t require intent, deliberation, or premeditation.

The following factors influence criminal liability:

  • Actus reus (guilty action or conduct): evidence that the accused committed an unlawful act that directly led to a person’s death or acted in a way that demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness.
  • Mens rea (intention or knowledge): while intent to kill is not required for Involuntary Manslaughter, there must be evidence of negligence or recklessness. For this, the accused should have been aware, or at least reasonably should have been aware, of the risk or danger their action (or inaction) would create.
  • Causation: There must be no doubt that the accused’s reckless or negligent behavior led to the victim’s death. In other words, the victim’s death would not have occurred without the reckless or negligent behavior of the accused.

It's the actus reus part that I don't think checks out with this charge. They weren't acting unlawfully. They weren't acting criminally. They were doing their jobs within the law.

https://www.dwilawyerstexas.com/tx-penal-code-15-02-criminal-conspiracy/

Texas law prohibits criminal conspiracy, which is the agreement to commit a crime. If two or more people devise a plan to commit a felony, and at least one of them acts in furtherance of the plan, each person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the object of the conspiracy.

Again, they weren't acting unlawfully.

It's actually legal for legislatures to pass legislation that kills us "passively." Otherwise, if it wasn't legal, homeless people could sue for their conditions and win. People who die from lack of medical care could sue and win. People who die in car accidents could sue because we dont have public transportation due to oil industry. We could sue due to climate change effects and government policies that worsened that. They currently cannot sue lawmakers and win those cases.

I am 100% for having laws in place that charge lawmakers with crimes for policies like this. But they currently don't exist how we want them to.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
829 points (98.7% liked)

News

22916 readers
3572 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS