Mass Shooting at San Antonio Elementary School

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 02:30 PM)michaelsean Wrote: That's a whole different ballgame.  If a jury agrees, then yes although it's not called a "sentence".

Oh ok, sentenced was the wrong word then. Non native speaker coming through.

I wonder though if in the end, meaning de facto, this system makes free speech a privilege for the rich and powerful. If you can afford potential financial consequences (or have the backing of an organization that will do so for you), you can say whatever you want. If you're not rich, you better keep your mouth shut.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-09-2022, 11:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bel already covered this, but I guarantee you'll hear just as bad at several mosques in your country.

If there is proof, the mosque is closed and the dude would face criminal charges and get expelled if he is not a citizen.

It happens a couple of times every year and there is no 'there is worse elsewhere' clause in our rule of law.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2022, 02:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh ok, sentenced was the wrong word then. Non native speaker coming through.

I wonder though if in the end, meaning de facto, this system makes free speech a privilege for the rich and powerful. If you can afford potential financial consequences (or have the backing of an organization that will do so for you), you can say whatever you want. If you're not rich, you better keep your mouth shut.

Free speech through the first amendment is related to the government.  But in a civil case you still have to prove damages.  And remember there really is no limit a jury can award someone in punitive damages.  An appeal court might knock it down, but they might not.  A rich person can lose a lot.

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 02:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Free speech through the first amendment is related to the government.

I get that. That's why I said 'de facto'.

(06-09-2022, 02:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: But in a civil case you still have to prove damages.  And remember there really is no limit a jury can award someone in punitive damages.  An appeal court might knock it down, but they might not.  A rich person can lose a lot.

Yeah, he* can, but also he can probably afford it. Those that aren't as rich and actually risk bancrupcy are those that have to be more careful about what they say. For all practical purposes.


*or she. I take it there's a lot she said.

[*michaelsean*]

(06-09-2022, 03:00 PM)hollodero Wrote: I get that. That's why I said 'de facto'.



Yeah, he* can, but also he can probably afford it. Those that aren't as rich and actually risk bancrupcy are those that have to be more careful about what they say. For all practical purposes.


*or she. I take it there's a lot she said.

You don't know if they can afford it until you get a dollar amount.  Think Amber Heard can afford it?  

[hollodero]

(06-09-2022, 04:11 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You don't know if they can afford it until you get a dollar amount.  Think Amber Heard can afford it?  

Maybe not, maybe therefore she should have been more careful with what to say. More careful than Johnny probably. He's likely more well off and can go further without risking being financially crushed.

Which is kind of my philosophical problem.

[*michaelsean*]

https://www.newsweek.com/joy-behar-gun-laws-black-people-panthers-shooting-1714196

You just wait until black people own guns.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2022, 02:36 PM)hollodero Wrote: Oh ok, sentenced was the wrong word then. Non native speaker coming through.

I wonder though if in the end, meaning de facto, this system makes free speech a privilege for the rich and powerful. If you can afford potential financial consequences (or have the backing of an organization that will do so for you), you can say whatever you want. If you're not rich, you better keep your mouth shut.

Actually, what you are hitting is one of the big criticisms of our justice system from the progressive side. We tend to see the scales of justice as imbalanced in this way where the most disadvantaged people in our country face the most damaging effects of our system. In fact, there are laws on our books to this day that were passed specifically to keep black people imprisoned and it was acknowledged that it would also sweep up poor white people. That was the intention of these laws. It's legitimately in the minutes of the Virginia General Assembly and was done to keep them from voting and to use them as free labor for the state.

So not only do we have our laws themselves than can have this imbalance, but as you note the way the fines are doled out can also be an issue. Then you have the powerful that will bring suits just because they know the other person can't afford to defend them, thus weaponizing the justice system for their benefit (something Trump was notorious for). It's all a mess.

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2022, 04:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/joy-behar-gun-laws-black-people-panthers-shooting-1714196

You just wait until black people own guns.

The ghost of Reagan is going to return.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 01:57 PM)hollodero Wrote: OK, so what about civil lawsuits? Could this guy potentially be sentenced to compensation payments?

You'd have to prove direct damages.  I'm not remotely an expert on civil law, but you'd have to prove you were caused damages directly linked to this guy's statements.  I don't think that would be very easy, which is a good thing.  Otherwise the court's would be flooded with people who suffered "emotional damage" because someone said a mean thing about them.  I'm sure it wasn't followed as intently in Austria, but look at the Depp v. Heard case.  Not only did they have to prove that Heard's allegations were false, but also that they were made with malice and an attempt to defame his character.  You'd have to hurdle a similar bar in your example.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 04:21 PM)michaelsean Wrote: https://www.newsweek.com/joy-behar-gun-laws-black-people-panthers-shooting-1714196

You just wait until black people own guns.

Yeah, I saw that.  Behar has become a truly insufferable partisan hack. I know over a hundred black people that own firearms.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-09-2022, 02:38 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: If there is proof, the mosque is closed and the dude would face criminal charges and get expelled if he is not a citizen.

It happens a couple of times every year and there is no 'there is worse elsewhere' clause in our rule of law.

Nor ours.  

[Leon]

i feel bad for all the victims and thier families of these shootings. it's horrible what these psychos are doing to innocent people. including little children but there's way to many people out there thinking guns are the issue when really mental health, society influences, failures in parenting and things like that are the real problem.

people are killed by cars multiple times everyday but it's because of the people, people texting, drinking, being drugged out, not good drivers and such. cars aren't the problem. people driving cars irresponsibly are.

[GMDino]

The more that comes out:

a) the worse it gets
b) the more we realize we have to stop holding press conferences immediately after these events to get "facts". 

What we get it guesses most of the time.  And occasionally outright fabrications from those who were there in order to deflect their own mistakes.

BREAKING: Multiple officers were inside Robb Elementary School with rifles and at least one ballistic shield at 11:52 a.m. the day of the shooting, new video and other evidence shows. They didn’t enter the classroom for another 58 minutes. More soon via @statesman and @KVUE. 1/2 pic.twitter.com/0BcYgq2hcQ

— Tony Plohetski (@tplohetski) June 20, 2022

 

[Belsnickel]

So, we keep learning so much more about this event, and the more I hear the more I am realizing that there will be no civil actions taken against the chief or other officers whose inactions caused the delay of the end of the event by nearly an hour more than it should have been. Because precedence exists that there is no obligation to protect the population for the police, there is no established right that was violated. Because of that, qualified immunity will prevent any of the officers from being held individually responsible for their actions. The city may suffer, but not the officers.

Now, qualified immunity is something the court made up, really. It was 100% legislation from the bench, or judicial activism, whatever you want to call it. With the current court being so hell bent on saying that they shouldn't be doing the job of the legislature with their supposed originalist ways, will we see a reevaluation of qualified immunity in this situation? I highly doubt it.

I will be frank and say I am in favor of a degree of qualified immunity. Without it, Section 1983 lawsuits would be happening far too frequently. But, I think that we need legislative action that would create qualified immunity with a narrow carve out for situations such as this. For situations where rights were violated in such an extreme circumstance that life was threatened or serious injury occurred. But we would need a Congress with a backbone, so that will never happen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 11:52 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, we keep learning so much more about this event, and the more I hear the more I am realizing that there will be no civil actions taken against the chief or other officers whose inactions caused the delay of the end of the event by nearly an hour more than it should have been. Because precedence exists that there is no obligation to protect the population for the police, there is no established right that was violated. Because of that, qualified immunity will prevent any of the officers from being held individually responsible for their actions. The city may suffer, but not the officers.

Now, qualified immunity is something the court made up, really. It was 100% legislation from the bench, or judicial activism, whatever you want to call it. With the current court being so hell bent on saying that they shouldn't be doing the job of the legislature with their supposed originalist ways, will we see a reevaluation of qualified immunity in this situation? I highly doubt it.

I will be frank and say I am in favor of a degree of qualified immunity. Without it, Section 1983 lawsuits would be happening far too frequently. But, I think that we need legislative action that would create qualified immunity with a narrow carve out for situations such as this. For situations where rights were violated in such an extreme circumstance that life was threatened or serious injury occurred. But we would need a Congress with a backbone, so that will never happen.

I don't blame the officers, I blame the politicians in charge of the department who ordered them to stand down.  The line officers were placed in a terrible position.  If you disobey orders and storm the room there's no positive outcome for you.  Even if you wildly succeed you're going to be fired for insubordination.  If things don't go well, especially if they go badly, not only are you getting fired you're going to be charged criminally.  So, you have the choice between that and having to standby knowing full well what's happening while you sit on your thumbs.  There's a reason why line officers don't trust anyone at lieutenant rank or above, and this is a perfect example of why.  There are exceptions, to be fair.

All that being said, I don't see any way in hell I'd be able to stand by while that piece of shit murdered children.

[*Nately120*]

The only worse look would be if the officers shot a legally armed good guy with a gun who was running in to help. Seeing as it is texas, my simple mind is surprised that didnt happen.

[Belsnickel]

(06-27-2022, 12:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't blame the officers, I blame the politicians in charge of the department who ordered them to stand down.  The line officers were placed in a terrible position.  If you disobey orders and storm the room there's no positive outcome for you.  Even if you wildly succeed you're going to be fired for insubordination.  If things don't go well, especially if they go badly, not only are you getting fired you're going to be charged criminally.  So, you have the choice between that and having to standby knowing full well what's happening while you sit on your thumbs.  There's a reason why line officers don't trust anyone at lieutenant rank or above, and this is a perfect example of why.  There are exceptions, to be fair.

All that being said, I don't see any way in hell I'd be able to stand by while that piece of shit murdered children.

I blame the chief, who told the officers to stand down when they were trying to go in. That is my main problem, really. The rest of my issues lie with the department for having such shitty equipment that their radios didn't even work inside the school (even when the chief did have someone bring him a radio because for some reason he showed up on the scene without it).

(06-27-2022, 12:28 PM)Nately120 Wrote: The only worse look would be if the officers shot a legally armed good guy with a gun who was running in to help. Seeing as it is texas, my simple mind is surprised that didnt happen.

There were several parents trying to do exactly that, but they were told to stand down. Not sure if any of them were handcuffed or not. Meanwhile, they let cops with kids in the school go get them while handcuffing a woman for trying to do the same. Interestingly enough, one of the things I was listening to on this topic said that because the cops did this, it may have in fact created a special relationship in which the police had the obligation to protect the children where they normally don't. But, because qualified immunity requires the established right to be well understood by the officer, the chief cannot be held liable for those actions and would still be protected.

[*Nately120*]

(06-27-2022, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I blame the chief, who told the officers to stand down when they were trying to go in. That is my main problem, really. The rest of my issues lie with the department for having such shitty equipment that their radios didn't even work inside the school (even when the chief did have someone bring him a radio because for some reason he showed up on the scene without it).


There were several parents trying to do exactly that, but they were told to stand down. Not sure if any of them were handcuffed or not. Meanwhile, they let cops with kids in the school go get them while handcuffing a woman for trying to do the same. Interestingly enough, one of the things I was listening to on this topic said that because the cops did this, it may have in fact created a special relationship in which the police had the obligation to protect the children where they normally don't. But, because qualified immunity requires the established right to be well understood by the officer, the chief cannot be held liable for those actions and would still be protected.

So armed citizens were attempting to intervene and were stopped? 

I can see the police protecting people from uselessly(?) Running unarmed into gunfire, but if they restrained good guys with guns you'd think there would be nuclear heat coming off this. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-27-2022, 12:40 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I blame the chief, who told the officers to stand down when they were trying to go in. That is my main problem, really. The rest of my issues lie with the department for having such shitty equipment that their radios didn't even work inside the school (even when the chief did have someone bring him a radio because for some reason he showed up on the scene without it).

That's exactly what I said.  The chief is an appointed position, they're politicians, not police officers, regardless of what they were in the past.  Line officers see the chief as no different than any other politician.