Biden administration sues Texas governor over Rio Grande buoy barrier that’s meant to stop migrants
3 years ago by YoBuckStopsHere to c/politics
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.
https://www.abajournal.com/...
Source: am a lawyer
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.
Greg Abbot is a fucking scumbag.
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
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?
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)
I don't think removing unauthorized barriers from a US border would qualify as domestic policing.
Sending the military to remove an obstruction at the border is not policing.
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.
how are buoy's supposed to stop anyone?
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
eh, I dont see how
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
go to feed...
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.
save