The Justice Department is suing Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott over a floating barrier that the state placed on the Rio Grande to stop migrants from entering the U.S.
  • @fuboEnglish
    98•1 year ago

    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.

    • @meco03211English
      20•1 year ago

      Generally not murder, but some lesser yet still serious crime. But the sentiment is there.

      • CileTheSane
        25•1 year ago

        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.

        • @meco03211
          -9•1 year ago

          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).

            • @Laticauda
              -11•1 year ago

              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.

              • @ShakeThatYam
                9•1 year ago

                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.

                • @Laticauda
                  1•1 year ago

                  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.

    • TwoGemsEnglish
      6•1 year ago

      Ribbit

        • @gerblerEnglish
          4•1 year ago

          The only time rich people get burned by breaking the law is when it fucks over other rich people.

    • @[email protected]English
      -2•1 year ago

      How are people killed by buoys? Also, where are you even getting that people “have been killed by this”?

  • @stanleytweedleEnglish
    35•1 year ago

    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.

    • BaroqueInMind
      16•1 year ago

      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?

      • @meco03211
        9•1 year ago

        Couldn’t the feds do all that then sue to recoup the cost after? Hell take parallel paths and just let the quickest win.

      • @badbytes
        7•1 year ago

        National Guards are commanded by Federal gov, otherwise they could be seen as a militia with insurrection abilities.

        • Bibliotectress
          1•1 year ago

          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)

      • @stanleytweedle
        14•1 year ago

        I don’t think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.

          • dreadgoat
            7•1 year ago

            Oh no, one of our states is unilaterally performing acts of war, but pOSsE cOmITatUS, guess our hands are tied, aw shucks

            • @Methylman
              4•1 year ago

              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

              • @shalafi
                0•1 year ago

                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?!

          • @stanleytweedle
            5•1 year ago

            Sending the military to remove an obstruction at the border is not policing.

            • @Methylman
              3•1 year ago

              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 laws on 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

  • @[email protected]English
    9•1 year ago

    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.

  • SuiXi3D
    5•1 year ago

    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.

    • @[email protected]
      8•1 year ago

      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

  • @tallwookieEnglish
    5•1 year ago

    how are buoy’s supposed to stop anyone?