- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Given that people have been killed by this, wouldn’t a federal murder charge be more appropriate?
By way of comparison, if a private homeowner sets a booby trap for burglars and a burglar is killed by it, the homeowner is guilty of murder.
Generally not murder, but some lesser yet still serious crime. But the sentiment is there.
If I design a trap that will kill someone climbing thorough my window there’s an argument for that to be 1st degree murder: it was pre-planned even if I didn’t have a specific target.
Setting a trap wouldn’t rise to the “intent to kill”. You can set Booby traps all day and not kill anyone. So setting the trap itself isn’t some overt act to kill. Setting a trap creates a situation that will likely result in the death of someone. That would probably be some form of manslaughter with terms like reckless or negligent depending on specifics. That’s why drunk drivers get manslaughter charges. They intended to get drunk and killed someone, but they didn’t drive drunk with the intent to kill someone. They created the dangerous situation (though that could carry the caveat if someone got drunk and intentionally drove into someone they intended to kill).
This is not some hypothetical, there is precedent for booby traps being murder. It’s a common line of cases taught in law school.
Source: am a lawyer
You’re a lawyer? Yeah right, name every law
*
That’s in Illinois where a lot of what would constitute as manslaughter in other states gets grouped under second degree murder instead. So it depends a lot on the state.
You said it doesn’t meet the “intent to kill” element. The Illinois first degree murder statute has an intent to kill element. He was not convicted of second degree murder which is a different charge.
I didn’t say anything about intent to kill, I’m not the person you initially replied to. What I’m saying is that a murder charge in Illinois (or Florida) has nothing to do with Texas. Different states have different qualifications for murder vs manslaughter, in some states abortion is considered murder for example, so if you want to make an argument for why someone would or wouldn’t be charged with murder for booby trapping in Texas you should use an example from Texas.
Ribbit
deleted by creator
The only time rich people get burned by breaking the law is when it fucks over other rich people.
No, they made insider trading legal for themselves.
How are people killed by buoys? Also, where are you even getting that people “have been killed by this”?
People were dying in the river before Texas tried to drown them on purpose. Which is what those buoys will do.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/07/04/us/migrant-drownings-texas-mexico-border/index.html
deleted by creator
Greg Abbot is a fucking scumbag.
No, say it how it is. Greg Abbott is a white supremacist murderer
And most Texans love this fact.
Maybe we should try calling him a liberal commie socialist anarchist? Just some good ole word vomit that might hurt him? Cause yeah I feel like calling him a white supremacist boosts his appeal to most of those cretins.
He’s also a little piss baby
I, for one, am on Team Tree.
deleted by creator
Not sure why the commander in chief can’t just order them removed and let Texas deal with the US military if they don’t like it.
Those buoys are deployed by the Texas National Guard who answer to the governor of the state of Texas and is property of the state.
The commander in chief could hypothetically commandeer their property and dispose it but requires a lot of legal hurdles and time to write warning orders, operational orders and fragmentary orders to deploy the US military to get it done.
It’s cheaper and easier to get the SCOTUS to order it illegal and force them to do it themselves with their own state money instead of federal money. Rather than burdening US taxpayers, lets burden Texan taxpayers to fix the problem they themselves created.
Your neighbor parked his pickup truck in your driveway to deliberately block you in and said he can’t move it because it’s broken down. Are you going to pay for a tow truck to haul it away or make him pay for it?
Couldn’t the feds do all that then sue to recoup the cost after? Hell take parallel paths and just let the quickest win.
Texas “National” Guard. lol
National Guards are commanded by Federal gov, otherwise they could be seen as a militia with insurrection abilities.
They do actually have their own state military. IIRC, they’re called state defense forces, and multiple states currently have them.
(Edited to fix my weird link)
Removed by mod
I don’t think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.
Removed by mod
Oh no, one of our states is unilaterally performing acts of war, but pOSsE cOmITatUS, guess our hands are tied, aw shucks
Yes - same way Trump couldn’t send in the military and had to rely on states’ national guards to clear protesters before that infamous photo-op in front of the church
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Let us know when you hit 20.
Removed by mod
Well said!
And I left reddit for this…
You can always tell when you’re debating a child. There’s no factual debate, just emotional, cutesy quips that garner upvotes.
Works on social media! Not so much when you have to produce and report results IRL.
I’d love a “porn” social media, where you have to prove your age to participate. How much saner would that be?!
Sending the military to remove an obstruction at the border is not policing.
Your right, but OP was incorrect in using the word policing when the Act passed by congress actually uses the words “domestic” law enforcement; (imo) arguably this includes any action that stems from edit: ACTING
enforcing lawson domestic, as opposed to foreign, soil. Further the exceptions allow for military to “provide” resources that support domestic enforcement officer which (again imo) would not extend to ‘not providing/actually removing’ resources that domestic enforcement officers do already have…All that to say what the act does do is create a grey area that can be argued either way and which does force the federal government to have to think twice about using the military for such matters… for better or for worse
Edit for clarity
Removed by mod
It’s removing an obstruction at the border.
Removed by mod
I don’t understand how they think this will stop immigrants crossing the border. They were already willing to deal with predatory coyotes, miles of scorching deserts, border control officers, and whatever variety of wildlife they encounter along the way, to reach the US. All in order to escape the hellhole situation they were in. These barbed wires and asshole “tactics” like dumping water onto the ground won’t stop them from attempting, and all it does is add additional cruelty and death to the situation.
I am for border control, but we need to do it in a smarter way and also fix the asylum process for these kinds of situations.
additional cruelty and death to the situation.
That’s the point.
Good. Make the bastard go broke paying legal fees. The less Governor Hot Wheels and his Cavalcade of Corruption have, the less they can pull this kind of shit.
Thats not how any of this works. It’s not like he is personally in civil court. He will incur exactly zero personal cost in this matter, and if anything with gain traction with his supporters.
The outcome will either be nothing happening or the barrier is taken down at the cost of taxpayers
I hate that you’re right.
how are buoy’s supposed to stop anyone?
Are they dying on the Mexico side or the west side? Perhaps it’s actually an act of war
eh, I dont see how
