• LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Okay, so is staff included in that? And what’s the legal basis? What law could they be charged under for this?

          • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Depends on how involved they were in the laws creation. Probably not enough to matter though. Their bosses could be charged with involuntary manslaughter on an individual basis, conspiracy to commit murder as a group or individual.

            • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              Involuntary manslaughter would probably not stick as a charge

              https://zealousadvocate.com/resources/law/involuntary-manslaughter-texas-legal-insights-and-real-world-perspectives/

              Involuntary manslaughter refers to the unintentional killing of another person, usually through reckless behavior or negligence. It’s different from other homicide offenses because it doesn’t require intent, deliberation, or premeditation.

              The following factors influence criminal liability:

              • Actus reus (guilty action or conduct): evidence that the accused committed an unlawful act that directly led to a person’s death or acted in a way that demonstrated criminal negligence or recklessness.
              • Mens rea (intention or knowledge): while intent to kill is not required for Involuntary Manslaughter, there must be evidence of negligence or recklessness. For this, the accused should have been aware, or at least reasonably should have been aware, of the risk or danger their action (or inaction) would create.
              • Causation: There must be no doubt that the accused’s reckless or negligent behavior led to the victim’s death. In other words, the victim’s death would not have occurred without the reckless or negligent behavior of the accused.

              It’s the actus reus part that I don’t think checks out with this charge. They weren’t acting unlawfully. They weren’t acting criminally. They were doing their jobs within the law.

              https://www.dwilawyerstexas.com/tx-penal-code-15-02-criminal-conspiracy/

              Texas law prohibits criminal conspiracy, which is the agreement to commit a crime. If two or more people devise a plan to commit a felony, and at least one of them acts in furtherance of the plan, each person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit the object of the conspiracy.

              Again, they weren’t acting unlawfully.

              It’s actually legal for legislatures to pass legislation that kills us “passively.” Otherwise, if it wasn’t legal, homeless people could sue for their conditions and win. People who die from lack of medical care could sue and win. People who die in car accidents could sue because we dont have public transportation due to oil industry. We could sue due to climate change effects and government policies that worsened that. They currently cannot sue lawmakers and win those cases.

              I am 100% for having laws in place that charge lawmakers with crimes for policies like this. But they currently don’t exist how we want them to.

    • Soup@lemmy.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      This is the only logical answer for this. Otherwise- their deaths mean nothing.

      • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s not logical? It doesn’t even have a legal basis.

        The real logical answer to bad government management is the French one - protest

        • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          3 months ago

          And if protests dont work as they often dont, then what? The guillotine. Thats a french thing nest pas?

          • Alph4d0g@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            We might be headed toward the same conditions that spawned the French revolution. I’m not in favor of that but once the wealth transfer gets to a certain point there’s historical president to draw upon.

            • Soup@lemmy.cafe
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              That isn’t going to happen. And in the very off chance that it does- the government is guaranteed the win, and the people will suffer.

              Greatly.

              • LustyArgonian@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                The government is made of people. Those people might refuse to do their jobs too.

                A protest is SUBSTANTIALLY more likely to happen than the original suggestion of charging state lawmakers with murder. There’s no murder charge that would qualify.

                • Soup@lemmy.cafe
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Riiiiight. Well, have fun storming the castle. Just don’t make a mess on my street, okay? I don’t want to have to clean that shit up.

                • JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  Reckless endangerment and manslaughter.

                  They were warned that women would die due these laws and they didn’t listen. They recklessly put those laws there and people died… resulting in manslaughter.

                  I’d prefer homicide too, but I feel like manslaughter charges would stick better because you don’t have to prove intent, just that someone died because of their actions.

      • dubious@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        the logical answer is something else entirely. definitely don’t hold your breath for the state to make them accountable.

        • Soup@lemmy.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I I’m not. Because the american government follows no logic whatsoever.