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
Time for every police union in the country to side with the cowards who enabled the murder of children.
Unions should always back the due process rights of their members…
Of all the things to shit on Police Unions for, this one actually requires a conviction to be valid.
Until then, it is every union’s moral and ethic obligation to support their members as they go through the legal process.
Unions are supposed to protect the powerless.
From my perspective, the police union wouldn’t be especially different from a corporate executives’ union.
If all unions were equal, then sure. But many are corrupted or are run by corrupt people.
I wouldn’t say many of them are corrupt, I don’t think that’s fair. I think it’s anti-union propaganda that’s been spread
Some are though… And if you were to pick one example head and shoulders above all others, the police union definitely comes to mind
I’m not doubting this but I wonder if there is any data to support this claim.
As it would be good ammunition to counter the anti-union rhetoric.
What would that data look like? It’s not exactly a metric you can nail down
“Unions are corrupt” was definitely a message intentionally spread, I can definitely find you some examples of corporations spreading that, but that’s not really data either
I guess I was wondering if there had been studies on the effectiveness of unions and looking at how many, if not negligible, have had reported cases of corruption and / or fraud.
Like I say I do believe unions do more good for workers than bad, but I also do believe that any organisation that gets to a certain size is inevitably going to be corrupt as the people that are going to be corrupt will do what is necessary to rise to the top.
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.”
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 fryFinally!
Yaasss, forcing law enforcement to “do their job” or go to jail sounds like a great idea!
Why the scare quotes?
Removed by mod
I wouldn’t be terribly shocked if a caveat was made for this kind of action. When you consider not just the inaction but them prohibiting parents from intervening you have materially different facts.
I don’t see a massive change coming but perhaps a narrowly tailored ruling.
You’re 100% right. The supreme Court ruled on the duty to protect and on qualified immunity, the only way the state could get a verdict is if it’s very narrowly tailored to either “extremely egregious and inhumane behavior” or for “stopping the parents”. There’s no other way for a judge to make a guilty verdict and at the same time make it appeal-proof to some degree.
And we just gotta hope and pray this gets through and doesn’t get overturned.
and certainly the worst officer-involved response to a mass shooting in our nation’s history.
Actually I think the Kent state massacre takes that title, sorry
Reread the sentence you quoted carefully. The Kent State Massacre was not a response to a mass shooting. So no, it doesn’t take that title.
Lol the police declared martial law for 10 days after the shooting and justified this with the lie that the national guard was shot at by snipers!
Lol the police declared martial law for 10 days after the shooting
Police cannot declare martial law. A Governor can, but not police. So, wrong again lmao. Listen, I don’t have the time or inclination to keep correcting you on basic history and civics, so I’m just going to go ahead and block you now.
Lolol yeah, the police implemented martial law not declared it, but when the police / national guard are lieing about about snipers trying to gun them down, what governor wouldn’t?
Clearly you have too much time on your hands if you’re going to be this pedantic of an asshole…
