742
That image is so emotionally appropriate.
We’re all Kylo Ren on this blessed day
Speak for yourself
I'm all Kylo Ren on this blessed day
The two officers face felony charges of abandoning and endangering a child[.]
Everyone owes it themselves to watch the PBS Frontline documentary on the Uvalde response.
Cowardice, gross negligence, and outrageous incompetence.
The only people I had respect for was the BORTAC team that showed up and got the shit going and actually made entry into the room.
Don't forget about the parents who tried to enter the school but were stopped by said cowards.
Pretty sure one parent actually did enter the school and get their kid.
That parent was one of the coward police officers.
One of the cops' spouse worked in the school and they had to physically restrain him from going in
Has he come out to say anything or is he sticking to the blue line?
Seems he resigned from that department but I can't find anything about him other than a piece talking about his wife since then. Nothing about his stance on policing, his job, etc.
Resigning from the department tells me enough, thanks.
No idea actually. Haven't heard much about him since the story came out. I will have to look up what came of this, if anything is out there to know.
Time for every police union in the country to side with the cowards who enabled the murder of children.
I work in municipal government, and this is the one national case where I haven't seen any of the police defending the PD. They're all like "fuck those guys. They let kids die to limit liability insurance rates."
load more comments
(8 replies)
Dude FUCK HIM UP
I can’t even imagine being outside the school for over an hour with the cops actively preventing me from going in and getting my spouse or child out, getting pepper sprayed and handcuffed, and then at the end of it finding out they were inside slowly dying of a gunshot wound the entire time. I am legitimately confused about how none of the cops involved in that have not been vigilante’d.
If every single one of them get felonies with long prison sentences, they should count themselves lucky as hell that their community is for whatever reason being so forgiving about it.
I am legitimately confused about how none of the cops involved in that have not been vigilante’d.
I also think about this a lot. There's like a mass shooting every day but it's never cops, politicians, billionaires.
Cops shoot back, and they protect the other two groups. They're cowards, but cowards will still fire blindly when they're directly in danger.
Yeah, but Uvalde is not a huge town and people know where the cops live, so I'm also surprised it hasn't happened yet.
Wasn’t it already decided that police are not obliged to help anyone? How can this go anywhere?
Even if it's just a gesture, those people deserve more than they got.
Generally speaking, any person can take anyone to court for any reason, and any prosecutor can charge anyone for any reason.
Once it gets to court is where the “but your honor the Supreme Court said X Y Z” comes into it. And in a lot of cases that’ll get you off, and in a lot of cases that will mean the prosecutor won’t even try because the law is so clear that it would just be a waste of everyone’s time to make the attempt. But, the circumstances of the case and a compelling counter argument can make that not the only outcome, and the judge and jury have a lot of leeway up to and including “hey you know what I think the Supreme Court got it wrong as hell in this case, guilty guilty guilty.”
When it’s fairly applied (which is, certainly, not even close to all the time) it’s actually a very good system.
Precedents get overturned from time to time, and the way that generally happens is when a new case comes along challenging that precedent.
Maybe this goes nowhere. Maybe a conviction gets overturned on appeal. But maybe we could see a new precedent set. Might as well try, you're probably not going to find a better case to do it any time soon.
Wouldn't the establishment of a new precedent require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling though? I'm not super familiar with the judicial system, so perhaps someone could tell me if I'm on the right track here with this hypothetical series of events
- Charges filed
- Defense motions to dismiss case on grounds that police don't have to protect anyone
- Prosecution counters that that's not necessarily what they are arguing here
- Judge at the lowest level with jurisdiction decides to allow the case to proceed based on prosecutions argument that they aren't litigating settled law
- Trial
- Defendants found guilty
- Defense files an immediate appeal and a stay of sentence because they still feel like their clients are protected by precedent
- Repeat until Supreme Court gets a writ of certiorari asking them to take up the appeal
- If SCOTUS accepts the case, they will decide if A) the defense IS actually protected by precedent in this scenario B) whether previous precedent is constitutional and C) the ultimate fates of the defendents 9.1 If SCOTUS does not take up the case, the lower court's decisions are affirmed and that becomes legal precedent.
Is that a probably series of events? Obviously the suit being allowed to continue and the defendents being found guilty are huge assumptions, but, assuming they come to pass, am I on the right track here?
Even if it did, it's Texas. They’d get pardoned by Abbot or some other insane bs.
Yeah this has already been litigated over and over, police have no obligation to protect or serve
Edit: Spelling
But they forcibly prevented the parents from protecting their own children. It's fine to say you won't protect and serve but by preventing the parents from going in should be some degree of murder. How the fuck could good Samaritan laws work if the people are required to act.
The officers literally instructed hiding children through the door to shout for help during an active shooter situation
This resulted in the direct death of at least one child that would otherwise have survived
The cops literally caused more dead kids than if they never showed up at all, indicated by the parent who fucking Metal Geared past the police line to extract their kids
Not to even mention how their messaging post-incident indicated the cops killed kids with indiscriminate shooting
Someone’s gotta do something about these cops.
They can literally shoot innocent people for no reason and not get charged with murder. you think they are gonna get charged with 'some degree of murder'?
Which means that every single time you see police protecting nazis, it's because they chose to. Uvalde was police showing us who they don't want to protect.
They did go out of their way to stop parents from doing something.
I'm not usually 'tough on crime'
In this case tho?
Let's see em fry
Finally!
Yaasss, forcing law enforcement to “do their job” or go to jail sounds like a great idea!
Why the scare quotes?
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
742 points (99.9% liked)
News
23287 readers
3483 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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