Politics And Current Events

[Morkle]

The other thing I’m seeing is that there are R states telling the DNC that Biden wont be on the ballot because of filing late or something?

[Shyster]

So the state passed a law in 2022 that allowed for abortions up to the 15th week, with some exceptions. Is this a process issue where that law didn't specify that it was superseding the existing laws? How did its passing effect the decision today?

The 2022 bill (Arizona Senate Bill 1164) specifically included a "construction" clause that said that it did not "Repeal, by implication or otherwise, section 13-3603, Arizona Revised Statutes, or any other applicable state law regulating or restricting abortion." Section 13-3603 is the abortion ban in question.

The total ban in § 13-3603 was enjoined by a court case shortly after Roe v. Wade was decided, and it remained enjoined until Dobbs overturned Roe. In the intervening years, it looks like Arizona passed other laws, but it always kept § 13-3603 on the books and specifically said that it was not repealing § 13-3603 in Arizona's most-recent abortion laws. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision is basically, "Hey legislature, you never repealed this statute and said that your 2022 stuff shouldn't be interpreted as repealing this statute, so now that Dobbs happened and there's no barrier to it being enforced, we can't interpret it as being repealed or superseded because you told us not to."

The legislature could fix this easily by just repealing § 13-3603 and going with the 15-week law they passed in 2022. If I were them, I'd do it tomorrow.

[faftorial]

The other thing I’m seeing is that there are R states telling the DNC that Biden wont be on the ballot because of filing late or something?

Ohio. Something about the democratic convention is set to occur after OH's deadline. Didn't read to see details.

[dodint]

Have all the container ship engineer experts pivoted to becoming election law experts already?

[nocera]

Meh. Both parties missed the deadline in 2020. Both parties have missed the deadline multiple times the last 20 years. There will be an extension like there always is.

[Pavel Bure]

Have all the container ship engineer experts pivoted to becoming election law experts already?

You mean eclipse experts?

[Morkle]

Meh. Both parties missed the deadline in 2020. Both parties have missed the deadline multiple times the last 20 years. There will be an extension like there always is.

I absolutely would not be surprised if that was the next thing done to screw with elections.

[Shyster]

Given (1) the level of hostility between the parties, and (2) that the states with deadlines (Ohio and I think Alamaba too?) likely have Republican election officials, I would not expect any extensions. Although, not having Biden on the ballot in either state isn't going to change anything because there's no way Biden would win either state. Ohio may have once been a swing state, but it isn't any more. And forget Alabama.

[NTP66]

Have all the container ship engineer experts pivoted to becoming election law experts already?

Gotta move onto something new after becoming world renowned virologists.

[NTP66]

I love shitposts like this.

[count2infinity]

One of the local MAGA houses (Trump signs everywhere) had a confederate flag up yesterday, which I thought was odd. It wasn't there today, which I found to be even more odd. So I went to the googles and found that yesterday was the anniversary of General Lee surrendering to General Grant in the civil war... what an odd way to commemorate the day.

[nocera]

One of the local MAGA houses (Trump signs everywhere) had a confederate flag up yesterday, which I thought was odd. It wasn't there today, which I found to be even more odd. So I went to the googles and found that yesterday was the anniversary of General Lee surrendering to General Grant in the civil war... what an odd way to commemorate the day.

Next year hang a white flag next to it.

[tifosi77]

Both of the preceding comments are objectively hilarious.

[count2infinity]

For the first time ever, a set of parents are convicted and sentenced in relation to their kid shooting up a school:

https://apnews.com/article/james-crumbl ... 4dc36d5436

[dodint]

Good.

[skullman80]

Yep. No sympathy for them at all.

[MR25]

To be fair, there was an astounding amount of evidence against them, especially in regard to how they gave the kid the gun despite all the signs.

Most other school shooting parent involvement is not as cut and dry as these idiots.

[count2infinity]

To be fair, there was an astounding amount of evidence against them, especially in regard to how they gave the kid the gun despite all the signs.

Most other school shooting parent involvement is not as cut and dry as these idiots.

But the slippery slope!

[tifosi77]

I can accept that there is a bar. And we can have reasoned debates about where that bar is or should be. But I would hope there's little debate as to whether this particular instance was on the wrong side of that bar.

[shafnutz05]

Yep. No sympathy for them at all.

Well deserved. I wonder if their son regrets sending his parents to prison too.

[MalkinIsMyHomeboy]

I don’t think you’re gonna find many people who disagree that they should’ve been charged. What they did went above and beyond for negligence and evil

[Shyster]

I can accept that there is a bar. And we can have reasoned debates about where that bar is or should be. But I would hope there's little debate as to whether this particular instance was on the wrong side of that bar.

I'm sure you will be shocked to hear that I disagree.

The parents were charged with and convicted of manslaughter based on gross negligence. That is, they were not alleged to have wanted to cause any injury to the victims. There are generally two ways to be convicted of manslaughter. You can intend to hurt someone but not kill them, or you can have no intent to injure, but you committed an act in a grossly negligent manner that caused the death of the victim. This case would present the latter.

A requirement of either form of involuntary manslaughter, however, is that the defendant caused the death of the victim—that is, (1) the victim died as a result of the act of the defendant, and (2) in doing the act that caused the victim's death, the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner. The word "caused" is used right there in the Michigan Model Criminal Jury Instructions:

(1) ​[The defendant is charged with the crime of _______________________/ You may also consider the lesser charge of] involuntary manslaughter. To prove this charge, the prosecutor must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(2)​ First, that the defendant caused the death of [name deceased], that is, that [name deceased] died as a result of [state alleged act causing death].

[Use (3) when gross negligence is alleged:]

(3)​ Second, in doing the act that caused [name deceased]’s death, the defendant acted in a grossly negligent manner.

But I question whether their act of giving a gun to their son "caused" the deaths of the people he killed. Michigan employs a "proximate cause" analysis to whether an act has caused a death, and under that sort of analysis, the death must be a "direct and natural result" of the defendant's act. As explained by the Michigan Supreme Court:

In criminal jurisprudence, the causation element of an offense is generally comprised of two components: factual cause and proximate cause. The concept of factual causation is relatively straightforward. In determining whether a defendant's conduct is a factual cause of the result, one must ask, "but for" the defendant's conduct, would the result have occurred?[55] If the result would not have occurred absent the defendant's conduct, then factual causation exists. The existence of factual causation alone, however, will not support the imposition of criminal liability. Proximate causation must also be established. As we noted in Tims, proximate causation is a "legal colloquialism." It is a legal construct designed to prevent criminal liability from attaching when the result of the defendant's conduct is viewed as too remote or unnatural. Thus, a proximate cause is simply a factual cause "of which the law will take cognizance." For a defendant's conduct to be regarded as a proximate cause, the victim's injury must be a "direct and natural result" of the defendant's actions. In making this determination, it is necessary to examine whether there was an intervening cause that superseded the defendant's conduct such that the causal link between the defendant's conduct and the victim's injury was broken. If an intervening cause did indeed supersede the defendant's act as a legally significant causal factor, then the defendant's conduct will not be deemed a proximate cause of the victim's injury. People v Schaefer, 703 N.W.2d 774, 785 (Mich. 2005).

I think there are problems with proximate causation in this case, and I'd be interested to see whether these convictions survive on appeal. Yes, the element of factual cause is present. But for the parents giving their son a gun, the son wouldn't have been able to shoot and kill the victims. But whether the murders were a "direct and natural result" of giving him a gun is to me a much-less-clear question. Certainly, I have loaned (at the range) guns to other people to shoot, and other people have likewise loaned guns to me. Those other people didn't immediately turn around and murder the person in the next lane over using my gun, and neither did I immediately murder someone with the gun entrusted to me. The same goes for untold people who have bought guns for their teen-aged children. A murder is not a "direct and natural result" of giving someone else a gun.

I don't disagree that in this case the parents giving their son a gun was a very bad idea, and if there were a crime for "criminally negligent entrustment of a firearm" or something along those lines, the parents would be guilty. But under the definitions and requirements for involuntary manslaughter used in Michigan law, I think there is a significant question of proximate causation.

[MWB]

Do the other factors of discovering violent messages and being recommended for immediate counseling go into the proximate causation part? I don’t think you would loan a gun to someone if they showed you a drawing like the one Crumbley did and told you they’ve been told to seek counseling.

[Shyster]

Do the other factors of discovering violent messages and being recommended for immediate counseling go into the proximate causation part? I don’t think you would loan a gun to someone if they showed you a drawing like the one Crumbley did and told you they’ve been told to seek counseling.

They would, yes. Although I would note that the drawing and counseling were both on the day of the shooting when the shooter already had the gun in his backpack, which the parents didn't know.

I'm not saying that the parents would win on an appeal. I just think there is a legitimate question as to proximate causation. The facts of this case certainly are unique in terms of the shooter's behavior and warning signs, and that may be sufficient to carry the burden. I do find it incongruous that the shooter was charged as an adult with premeditated murder, pleaded guilty to all of the charges, and was sentenced as an adult to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus 24 years, yet all of those crimes were apparently not considered an intervening superseding cause.

[King Colby]

I get your point but the negligent act was giving a person the murder weapon despite clear warning signs that a reasonable person would be aware of