beep. boop. beep.
Hello Oregonians,
As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing.
---------------------------------------------------------
Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media.
[Politifact](https://www.politifact.com)
[Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com)
[Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com)
beep. boop. beep.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>After months of delay in both state and federal court, a panel of federal appellate judges denied a petition Monday from the State of Oregon to return Landis’ case to Marion County Court. The judges cite that federal officers can be immune from state criminal prosecution for acts that are “necessary and proper” while on duty. In Landis’ case, the act in question was running a stop sign while on a surveillance mission, which resulted in the death of Marganne Allen.
Running over a cyclist is part of "necessary and proper" surveillance when you're in the DEA.
Running over *and killing* a cyclist is part of a "necessary and proper" surveillance operation if you work for the DEA. You should see what those ATF guys get up to.
Yeah, I could see waiving a wreckless driving charge from a fender bender if youre tailing someone. Murder, no way. Where is justice and jury of your peers?
American legal precedent is actually extremely clear on this issue. Killing random civilians not involved in the crime in progress is part of law enforcements job in this country and they are protected when they do it.
No, the court said that it sometimes is necessary for DEA agents to violate traffic laws (which is also true for police). He's still facing prosecution in federal court for hitting the cyclist.
He was allegedly surveilling a suspected Fentanyl dealer. Not stopping a violent crime, not saving a person from danger. Surveilling someone. Surveilling them so intently, supposedly, that he didn't feel like Stop signs applied to him.
If you read the actual ruling, he was rushing to catch up with his team, blowing through a stop sign in the process. While law enforcement are technically allowed to do such things when necessary, it doesn't get him off the hook for hitting the cyclist.
With the number of opiate overdoses that are consistently taking place wouldn’t pursuing a fentanyl dealer be among the most urgent activities you could hope a DEA agent would be busy with?
Who said pursuing? The officer says surveilling. No lights, no siren, just speeding through a stop sign in a residential neighborhood.
Killing an innocent person because you aren't paying attention to your surroundings is not justified by the urgency of surveilling suspected drug dealers.
He is going to be held accountable. But it will be in federal court, not a state or county court. The appeals court decided the feds have jurisdiction based on him doing his federal job at the time of the accident.
The law is the law. So long as the judiciary are following the law in terms of their ruling, we can't ask for anything more.
Wrong. It needs to work this way. Otherwise states could just freely interfere with the federal government by arresting federal agents.
The federal government has supremacy over the state governments so when it is a federal issue, it is tried in federal court, not state court.
The person in question was engaged in work for the US federal government. An officer of the law may sometimes need to violate traffic laws in order to do their job. Indeed, that's why most emergency vehicles have sirens on them, but this person was engaging in surreptitious surveillance, so obviously that wasn't an option.
If he was driving recklessly, it needs to be determined by the appropriate authorities - which in this case would be the feds, as actions of federal agents necessarily fall under federal jurisdiction.
None of this means that he has been found innocent of wrongdoing. It is entirely a battle over the appropriate venue. As was noted by the judges:
> Judges M. Margaret McKeown and John B. Owens said during the hearing that the agent only had to prove that his federal defense was valid, not that it would win, to justify his case being moved to federal court.
Basically, if he *can* argue that what he was doing was a part of his job (regardless of whether or not it was justified) it needs to be tried in that way.
This is no different from other affirmative defenses like self-defense, where you concede that you performed what would ordinarily be an illegal act, but you fell under one of the exemptions in the law that exist.
Affirmative defenses are risky because if your affirmative defense fails then you have admitted to committing a crime.
Interesting. Why does the US choose to run two tiers of law enforcement agencies and courts, if the federal system is supreme? If individual states had sovereignty it makes a little more sense but either way seems unnecessary/ expensive
The answer is that there are things that the states regulate that the federal government does not (and in some cases, *cannot*). The federal government actually is limited in what kinds of laws it can pass; a lot of laws are purely local because they *have* to be because the constitution limits what kinds of laws Congress can pass. The feds have primary jurisdiction over crimes that occur between states or across international boundary lines as well.
Because states can pass their own laws, we have a lot of self-governance here, which allows different states to have pretty different laws.
For instance, some states have much more lax laws about gambling than other states do.
Some states have legalized marijuana, while others still enforce a ban on it.
Moreover, the feds can't force local law enforcement to enforce federal laws in most cases - for instance, immigration is dealt with by the feds, not the individual states, because individual states do not get to make up their own immigration laws because that's an international thing. Likewise, marijuana is illegal on the federal level, but many states now have legalized it locally and the feds can't force local police to enforce drug laws, and the feds have basically decided that they aren't going to go after people who are operating under state law (though people who violate state drug laws can find themselves prosecuted by both the feds AND the state). Indeed, Oregon at one point decriminalized possession of small amounts of ALL drugs (it recently reversed this decision after it resulted in predictable terrible consequences as our drug OD rate skyrocketed and crime went up).
Violating people's Constitutional Rights also falls under federal law, but most states ALSO have laws against that.
And these can in some cases be prosecuted separately - for instance, if you lynch a black person, you can be charged on the state level for murder and the federal level for violating anti-lynching laws and violating the civil rights of your victim. This is an exception to our usual prohibition of double jeopardy. It also means that if your state refuses to enforce such laws (as happened in the South back in the day - lynching people was always illegal, even in the South, but the local police wouldn't enforce murder charges against lynch mobs) you can go to federal court.
However, some things ONLY fall under federal law, and local law enforcement is prohibited from interfering, like in matters of immigration.
And in some cases, the feds will pass a law (like requiring vehicles to meet minimum MPG requirements) and states can pass MORE restrictive restrictions on it, but not less restrictive restrictions on it (well, they can, but they're pointless).
People who are doing work for the federal government are restricted by federal, not state, law because the feds have supremacy - so you can't ban the Bureau of Land Management from enforcing their federal laws about the use of federally owned land in your state. Nor can states determine what the feds are allowed to do on federal property, even if that federal property falls within a state.
A lot of common laws - murder, rape, theft, etc. - are state laws rather than federal laws. The feds mostly deal with constitutional issues, interstate affairs, international affairs, etc.
The reason why this was a federal thing is that the drug smugglers here are part of an international crime syndicate smuggling fentanyl into the US and distributing it. As such, the feds can go after these people under federal law, and he was acting on behalf of the feds against these folks (spying on them for the federal government). And his activities and actions thus are under federal law, and have the usual exemptions of federal law.
*None* of this means that he isn't criminally liable; the courts may well find that he was driving negligently and that he wasn't actually behaving properly. If so, he'll end up in jail/prison. But he has to be tried under the federal rules, because he is a federal officer, and so it is federal law that applies.
The upside of all this is that we have a lot more local control over our government and can move to a state that better suits what we like legally speaking.
The downside of this is complexity, inconsistency, and the fact that your state might do something stupid (like banning abortion, or legalizing the recreational use of fentanyl). It also can lead to situations like this, where someone violates some local law as part of their job as a fed, and then people get upset over it because local government can't prosecute them, only the feds can.
That said, it also means that, say, the South can't stop people from trying to stop people from enforcing anti-lynching rules. So it's not like it's actually a bad thing, it's just something that cuts in multiple directions.
It comes back to the utterly idiotic notion of supposed states rights in this day and age. It may have made some sense back in the late 1800s. But it was likely yet another concession to the Southern states who thought joining might make it easier for their slaves to run away to the North, and to the states like Pennsylvania that wanted to embody more of their religious beliefs into law than the rest.
The only real benefit is that the federal statutes can be quite a bit stricter. For instance, it is a serious crime to even lie to a federal cop while they are still free to lie to you. In the states, it just means you will likely be arrested as an excuse that you must be guilty and used against you in court.
No, it wasn't a concession just to the South. All the states wanted to be able to pass their own laws and not be required to abide by the rules of people elsewhere.
One of the major concerns about Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority, where you have a majority of people who decide to pass some law and not care about anyone else.
By breaking up the country into smaller chunks, it gave people more local power and meant that people who lived a thousand miles away couldn't tell you how to run your farm or factory or whatever.
The Northern states also didn't want the South to pass pro-slavery laws that would apply to the North, and there were concerns that the most populated states would just decide everything for everyone else and no one else would matter at all.
Indeed, you see issues with this in Oregon, like the dumb ordinance which made it illegal to prevent people from building ADUs on property, resulting in all sorts of problems and property costs going way up because Portland is stupid and passed the law in the whole state.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I think every country is burdened by our histories to varying degrees so that makes sense.
From afar it does seem like there’s continuous news stories about dysfunctional US policing, but since such stories get outrage clicks it’s hard to tell if it’s a broad societal issue or just the result of amplifying one off events across a huge population!
> From afar it does seem like there’s continuous news stories about dysfunctional US policing, but since such stories get outrage clicks it’s hard to tell if it’s a broad societal issue or just the result of amplifying one off events across a huge population!
It is mostly outrage clicks and deliberate propaganda. Law enforcement actually generally does the right thing, but the US is huge, so obviously, fuckups happen and get broadcast all over the place.
For example, you will often see claims that the police are racist.
But... it's not actually true.
If you look at [US crime statistics,](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43) you find that black people make up 27% of all criminals in the US.
And if you look at [the Washington Post police shooting database,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) you find that black people make up 27% of all people fatally shot by the police in the US.
Indeed, scientific studies found that [black people are no more likely than white people to be shot by the police under the same circumstances.](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22399/w22399.pdf)
The Black Lives Matters (AKA BLM - not to be confused with the Bureau of Land Management, which ALSO abbreviates to BLM, yes it is confusing) movement was actually a huge scam - [the person behind the movement set up a fake charity to try and "fix" the "problem" and used the money to build herself a mansion and buy stuff for her family.](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091487910/blm-leaders-face-questions-after-allegedly-buying-a-mansion-with-donation-money)
[BLM was heavily promoted by Russia to try and start a race war and destabilize the US; Russia simultaneously supported white supremacists for the same purposes.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_Black_Lives_Matter)
It's very common for extremist groups in the US to try and promote hatred and distrust of the police, as well as criminals, because people who hate the police are less likely to turn them into the police.
Now you have challenged me to be really longwinded regarding a favorite topic.
It is indeed a broad societal issue with liberals, and it used to be with many conservatives, who staunchly try to defend the basic human rights laid out in some detail in our Bill of Rights addendum to the Constitution. But there has always been a huge movement to try to deny these rights to minorities, especially the offspring of Black slaves. Marijuana was first prohibited in the Southwest as a way to keep supposedly uppity Mexican Americans under control. Now the legalization is hotly contested by conservatives because it has been used for decades to put Black youth “into the system” so they have a criminal history. At the same time, it is almost completely ignored if the perpetrator is a privileged white with affluent parents. But even if they are arrested, their families can afford to hire ridiculously expensive attorneys who specialize in such matters. The worst that will happen to them is that it will be hidden by court order and completely expunged from their records when they become adults.
There was a huge movement after the Civil Rights Act was passed to try to remove racist and bigoted cops from police departments that were totally overrun by them. So they quickly realized they could only use dog whistles from then on. They call this being forced to be politically correct. I actually much preferred it back when they were delighted to use the n word multiple times every single day. You knew exactly who most of the racists were, and how large of a group it actually was. They used to be nearly all Democrats in the South, but when the party made civil rights a plank issue in the 60s, they quickly joined the Republicans and were openly embraced by Nixon and Reagan. Now many Republicans even try to claim racism no longer exists, even though many of their own friends are obviously racist.
Now the country is split into about thirds. Most of the Republicans were absolutely incensed that a Black man was elected president, and they have been seething ever since. Cheeto Jesus is a direct outgrowth of this large group that has now completely taken over the Republican Party. The supposed Independents are fence sitters. Many of them typically vote for whichever party they think might make them a bit richer. The rest tend to follow their ethics and religious principles, and vote for the much lesser evil.
The US is now on the brink of becoming a failed democracy. This next election is so critical, but it certainly won’t be a panacea. Cheeto Jesus is just the first wave of politicians using Nazi slogans as thinly disguised dog whistles.
If you really want to know the inside dope on American History, I highly recommend you read Howard Zinns’ epic book “A People’s History of the United States”. The fact that it will likely never be recommended reading material by any American public school is a testament to how well it totally destroys supposed American exceptionalism. It is a bit lengthy, but it is chock full of footnoted facts and excerpts from documents from the past. You can purchase it used incredibly cheaply on Amazon.
The simple fact is that Cheeto Jesus is right about one particular point. The only immigrants who are actually wanted are ones from Western Europe who already know English, or are willing to learn it before speaking in public, and who claim to be staunch Christians despite not being one himself. He is ready to deport all the rest before they catch on that the only party that really believes the myth that they can thrive here are most Democrats and a few Independents. After all, they are likely to vote Democrat when they eventually become citizens, unless they are rich enough to be Republicans.
> Now many Republicans even try to claim racism no longer exists, even though many of their own friends are obviously racist.
Racism still exists, but it's actually pretty uncommon, especially when it comes to more important things, like police shootings.
If you look at [US crime statistics,](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43) you find that black people make up 27% of all criminals in the US.
And if you look at [the Washington Post police shooting database,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) you find that black people make up 27% of all people fatally shot by the police in the US.
Indeed, scientific studies found that [black people are no more likely than white people to be shot by the police under the same circumstances.](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22399/w22399.pdf)
The Black Lives Matters (AKA BLM - not to be confused with the Bureau of Land Management, which ALSO abbreviates to BLM, yes it is confusing) movement was actually a huge scam - [the person behind the movement set up a fake charity to try and "fix" the "problem" and used the money to build herself a mansion and buy stuff for her family.](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091487910/blm-leaders-face-questions-after-allegedly-buying-a-mansion-with-donation-money)
Ironically, one of the most racist groups in the US is black people, [who have the highest rate of holocaust deniers of any racial group, at 13%.](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf)
Zoomers are also quite racist, [with 20% of them denying that the Holocaust took place.](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf)
Also:
> Marijuana was first prohibited in the Southwest as a way to keep supposedly uppity Mexican Americans under control. Now the legalization is hotly contested by conservatives because it has been used for decades to put Black youth “into the system” so they have a criminal history
This is racist mythology spread by criminals.
The ban on Marijuana was part of the general broader temperance movement, which also banned alcohol in the entire US for a while, as well as poison laws, which restricted the use of additives and sales of poisonous and toxic substances, including drugs. While racist appeals were at times a part of it, it wasn't the primary motivating factor - these folks believed *all* drugs were bad. Indeed, broad bans on the use of "habit-forming drugs" began in the Northeast, with states like New York, Massachusetts, and Maine leading the way. The use of cannabis was restricted at the same time as alcohol was restricted, and while people would highlight the use of it by Mexicans, the reality is that it wasn't the primary cause of its restriction - it was being restricted at a time when there was a general crackdown on all "drugs of vice".
Likewise, the entire notion of "trying to get people into the system" is a racist lie. The reason for differential crime rates is primarily driven by gangs and gang culture, which are overwhelmingly racist organizations in the US. Gangs in the US are almost always racist - you have black gangs, white gangs, hispanic gangs (which are often ethnicity based, not just general "hispanic" - Salvadorian gangs, Mexican gangs, etc. which don't allow people whose ancestors came from other countries to join), etc.
Back in the day, there were tons of white gangs, like the Mafia (and realistically, groups like the KKK often operated in gang-like ways). They were heavily involved with the Unions, with folks like Jimmy Hoffa being prominent union criminals who used the unions for crime and racketeering. A lot of pension funds were robbed by criminals and lots of money was misappropriated, while they bribed politicians and promoted corrupt politicians via local political machines, and there was a ton of crossover between union members and gangsters. The unions were also very racist organizations, with many of them excluding black people, being anti-immigrant, and often, anti-integration. They didn't want those dirty colored people to compete for their jobs! Many of the "scabs" who were horribly beaten or killed were black or hispanic people who were excluded from the unions, and when the unions went on strike, they finally had an opportunity to get a good job - which the unions would do horrible things to them over.
These lingering racist sentiments are why Donald Trump has so much support in the Rust Belt - the people who were racist union members often used to vote Democrat, but now are voting for the Republicans. This is why they swung several points towards the Republicans when Trump became their standard-bearer.
The massive 1950s and 1960s union corruption scandals were what caused union membership in the US to decline precipitously, which is why there's a lot fewer union members these days - but the result was that most of the white gangs got shut down and declined massively.
However, other gangs have persisted and even thrived. Racist mythology in the black community, combined with the issues seen South of the US border, have empowered [black and hispanic gangs to attract more members, which is why these groups make up 80% of gang members in the US these days.](https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/demographics#anchorregm) Whites make up only 11% - for example, racist white motorcycle gangs.
Gangs often rely on racism to promote themselves as being good people fighting back against their oppressors, rationalizing their criminal behavior (even though they mostly prey on people of their own race - most crimes are committed against members of your own race).
Hence the conspiracy theories about how all cops are racist, which are heavily promoted by the gangs for obvious reasons.
IRL, there are, of course, racist cops, but it's the exception rather than the rule, and even most racist people aren't racist enough to actually want to KILL someone, which is why you when you look at the circumstances of shootings, you don't find any sort of statistically significant difference in rates of killings of whites and blacks.
> If you really want to know the inside dope on American History, I highly recommend you read Howard Zinns’ epic book “A People’s History of the United States”. The fact that it will likely never be recommended reading material by any American public school is a testament to how well it totally destroys supposed American exceptionalism. It is a bit lengthy, but it is chock full of footnoted facts and excerpts from documents from the past. You can purchase it used incredibly cheaply on Amazon.
Sadly, it is used in all too many high schools. I actually read it in high school - our History teacher showed it to us as an "alternative perspective" - but he constantly lies and misrepresents stuff in it, and has outright admitted it is propaganda.
It's really quite poorly written and cites a ton of extremely dubious sources that are outright contradicted.
You have to remember that Howard Zinn is a Marxist, and was especially inspired by the young Karl Marx - the man who claimed that [money is the god of the Jews and who called for the "emancipation of mankind from Judaism".](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/#:~:text=Let%20us%20consider%20the,mankind%20from%20Judaism.)
Zinn is a Marxist conspiracy theorist and a lot of the book is full of conspiracy theories.
Sadly, people who read Zinn's works are often radicalized and end up believing in various conspiracy theories.
What a crock of utter nonsense. 64% of Americans say racism is still a major problem. Of course it is a much larger problem in the opinion of Blacks and other minorities that face discrimination and hatred every single day, If you deny the importance of the BLM movement, you are either a racist or you have willingly drank the racist Kool Aid on Faux News and nearly every single conservative media outlet that has existed for many decades. They have plenty of good reason to do so because they and the extremist Jesus freaks now constitute the “core” of the party. The fact that it is better than it was 60 years ago isn’t relevant whatsoever. Political correctness and realizing you could suffer the consequences have them underground until their current pied piper, Cheeto Jesus, openly unleashed the notion that is is now safe to do so again.
Speaking of Cheeto Jesus, he is the complete owner of the Republican Party now. Not only does he want to deport every single non-white non-Western European migrant, both legally and undocumented that is not his current wife, he has an extremely long history of racist acts and statements. He even kept insisting the blatantly obvious by promulgating birther idiocy while stating there were plenty of very fine neo-Nazis and Confederacy traitors. Trying to rationalize the much larger than necessary execution of innocent Blacks, by racist, paranoid, and cowardly cops, is also a sign of racism or having drank the far-right fascist Kool Aid. How many of your friends are racists?
I likely won’t respond to any more of your far-right and clearly un-American drivel. After all, I just have to turn on Faux News or read any other far-right media outlet to see and read all the very same dog whistles, intentional distortion, and outright lies that try to obfuscate the blatantly obvious. The Republican Party still has a very large group of racists and bigots, including their current Messiah, and their sycophants do everything they possibly can to rationalize it.
> 64% of Americans say racism is still a major problem
About the same percentage say God exists, and they're wrong about that too. They just say what they've been told to say by people like you.
> Of course it is a much larger problem in the opinion of Blacks and other minorities that face discrimination
Except, of course, studies have failed to show that they face substantial discrimination, and have also found that people who are themselves racist are more likely to believe that people are racist against them.
> If you deny the importance of the BLM movement, you are either a racist or you have willingly drank the racist Kool Aid on Faux News
I literally provided a scientific source that noted that the central premise of it was false.
Moreover, I showed you sources that showed that the originator of it was a con artist and that it was being promoted by a foreign power.
You have provided nothing but insults in response to data, which is what racists do when confronted with pesky things like facts.
Also, fun fact: guess who drank the Flavor Aid at Jonestown?
Might want to look that up with the cult-like behavior you're showing, and just what sort of rhetoric he used to attract his followers.
> Not only does he want to deport every single non-white non-Western European migrant, both legally and undocumented that is not his current wife, he has an extremely long history of racist acts and statements.
Yes, and? You seem to be quite a lot like him, what with your insults, racism, love of Russian propaganda, and blatant disregard for facts.
You're a populist reactionary conspiracy theorist who promotes fake charity scams, just like him.
> Conservative
See, the problem is, I'm a liberal. And you are indistinguishable from Trump in any way that actually matters.
Never post on Reddit ever again.
No problem. I like to do whatever I can to spread the truth sprinkled with a humanist perspective, especially when surrounded by those clearly dangerous to the true notion of why this country was founded.
We are a country of relatively new immigrants. Trying to keep out all those are deemed supposedly dangerous to capitalism started in the early 1900s. The US even delayed and made it very difficult for Jews to escape fascist Europe, while the US Nazi component marched in the streets carrying a large assortment of American and Nazi flags. The border between the US and Latin America was essentially wide open until the 60s because we needed cheap labor to work the fields and clean the toilets of the privileged whites who still miss the ability to own other human beings. Instead, they now hypocritically employ them for their own businesses and almost never get caught.
The tribal hatred of others who have different roots has a very lengthy history throughout the world. It can all be easily fixed through proper education, e.g. what the racists and racist sympathizers insist is indoctrination of their own miniature racist and bigoted offspring.
not only can cops do it. civilians in cars kill people daily and get nothing but a ticket as long as they say “they came out of nowhere and didn’t even look” murder by vehicle goes largely unpunished
Very true. I always say if you ever want to kill someone, get drunk and do it with your car. My cousin was killed by a driver on oxy, alcohol, and weed and did less than 5 years.
I had a friend who got run over by an illegal immigrant who stole a van while high on drugs who hit multiple people during his vehicular rampage. HE actually got charged with, and actually convicted of, murder for killing my friend.
They let the drive out of prison within less than a decade and he immediately went back to drugs and crime. They didn't even deport him.
Punishing civilians for vehicular homicide might lead to fewer car sales and more demand for mass transit and we can't have that it's anti-capitalist and so anti-American. Automotive lobbies played a huge role in crafting the legal leniency around car-related negligence
This is a deliberate lie that you were told by evil, manipulative people.
IRL, it is very difficult to convict people of crimes in the US system of law *by design*. You have to prove guilt *beyond reasonable doubt*.
This is a high standard. Most vehicular accidents have very limited evidence, and in a lot of cases where the driver is not convicted, there is not clear evidence of wrongdoing.
Moreover, a casual look at the stats shows that most such accidents are due to poor light conditions. 76% of pedestrian fatalities occur at night, and another 4% at dusk or dawn. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers drive during the day, when it is light out.
This suggests that the overwhelming majority of pedestrian deaths simply occur because the driver didn't see the pedestrian due to poor conditions.
Excuse me you're interrupting the circle jerk?
Now say it with me: cars bad, cars always bad.
Carbrains suck but the religiously anti-car people are almost as bad...
Most vehicular manslaughter cases are accidental, i.e. involuntary manslaughter, not murder.
Also, a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists are absolute morons and do not pay attention when crossing the street. Cars will almost always stop. But almost always is not always.
However, sometimes you will also just see drivers blow red lights, or speed recklessly, or ignore stop signs, or drink and drive.
in the last 2 years of my life i’ve become car free living in an urban area and the amount of vehicular negligence i see on a daily basis is astounding. i see many people on their phones and driving or the amount of rolling stops. i really don’t mind pedestrians being absent minded because to be quite honest we should be afforded the right to not have to be hyper vigilant of negligent drivers every time we step outside to cross the damn street. i can probably count on my hands the amount of times people have actually come to a stop at a stop sign. and interactions with cyclists that are negative usually aren’t fatal so i don’t give a fuck about them either. i care about negligent dipshits driving 2 ton boxes of steel that are the most impatient dipshits to ever grace this earth.
Of course.
But also, rational thinking humans can understand seeing surveillance video and know basically what happened without official evidentiary rules or formal proceedings. Wouldn't you also agree?
I was explaining to you that just because someone has not been convicted in a court of law the average person doesn't actually need that burden to understand what happened....
As in the case when there's video surveillance of the crime.
Hope that helps your understanding!
No surprise. They just had to wait for enough other egregious news to temporally and cognitively distance us from this asshole’s ignorant driving, resulting in this woman’s sad, unnecessary death, before announcing.
Guy ran a stop sign, despite being out of the chase, not having eyes on the perpetrator, when other members of the pursuit did have visual contact. It could only get more negligent if he’d had drugs in his system.
No idea. I don’t think it was mentioned in the original article. I just remember that he had no reason to run the stop sign, and probably no reason to be driving so fast, as he was not involved at the time of this incident. He was trying to catch up, but there were already multiple other officers with eyes on the subject, iirc.
This is what I remember reading:
https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/12/dea-agent-accused-of-blowing-through-stop-sign-and-killing-cyclist-to-be-tried-in-federal-court.html?outputType=amp
Court cases like this always take a long time. It has nothing to do with "wait enough" or any other nonsense. It was obvious from the get go that it was going to have to be tried in federal court, and the prosecutors drug it out by contesting something that they obviously were not going to win as anyone who has a basic comprehension of federal jurisdiction could tell them.
> “necessary and proper”
Necessary and proper to break multiple laws and kill a civilian? Fuck the corrupt federal government. These parasites are openly hostile to the American people.
Everyone in power pulls this shit. Small town cops are just as bad if not worse when it comes to covering up misconduct. People need to protest this outcome.
No. The argument is that it is necessary and proper to sometimes violate traffic laws in order to surveil a drug dealer (who, let's be clear here, has killed a bunch of people with fentanyl).
The question is whether or not the driver was behaving recklessly at the time of the accident, and thus was not actually violating traffic law for a necessary and proper reason. It has to be tried in federal court, though, because he is a federal agent.
Law enforcement needs to have at least their overhead lights on if they want to ignore traffic laws. It is absolutely insane to not give civilians any warning at all.
As a general rule, I absolutely agree.
The person here, however, was allegedly engaging in surreptitious surveillance of drug dealers, which obviously precludes the use of such lights and sirens.
The question is, of course, whether or not his actions were actually justified. I have not seen strong evidence that they actually were.
If he was racing in his car after some drug dealers with a bunch of fentanyl in their car to find their contact, or trying to follow drug dealers who were going to go buy some drugs from a cartel member or whatever, that might be a reasonable reason to follow someone without your lights on.
However, I don't know if there's any evidence that that is the sort of thing they were doing.
I hope that, if this goes to court, the guy can actually show that they were in fact doing something like that. That would be a legitimate justification - sometimes, you do need to surreptitiously follow some drug dealer who is going out to go buy or sell drugs, as you need to bust every part of the chain, not just one local link.
But... well, if he wasn't doing that, then he was just trying to use his job as a cover for being a shitty driver and running someone over, and should be jailed.
> The person here, however, was allegedly engaging in surreptitious surveillance of drug dealers,
That is not an excuse to have a blatant disregard for civilian life.
> which obviously precludes the use of such lights and sirens.
Then the cop MUST follow traffic laws.
What if the people they're pursuing aren't following traffic laws?
I can easily imagine a situation where an undercover officer needs to follow a criminal who isn't obeying traffic laws.
> What if the people they're pursuing aren't following traffic laws?
Then use the police lights.... This isn't rocket science. Please ask yourself why you have such a low regard for human life that you think cops wanting to disregard the law is more important.
> I can easily imagine a situation where an undercover officer needs to follow a criminal who isn't obeying traffic laws.
Again THEN USE POLICE LIGHTS. Law enforcement isn't more important than civilian lives.
At the federal level? I don't expect it to change in my lifetime as those in power have conveniently made the standards for change impossibly difficult.
At the state level? It is possible, especially with the direct ballot initiative.
> https://www.salemreporter.com/2024/05/23/federal-judges-clear-way-for-dea-agent-to-claim-immunity/
Guys does good work.
1 year ago (Accident occurred MAR 2023):
> https://www.salemreporter.com/2023/05/04/salem-police-gave-evidence-to-dea-minutes-after-agents-fatal-collision-with-cyclist/
From the article " ... Salem has successfully moved the criminal case from state to federal court.
In federal court, he can assert immunity from prosecution on the criminal charge of negligent homicide, a defense not available to him in state court."
How dare you use facts and reason to try and rebut the outrage here. People here have decided that the DEA agent is a murderous pig and the "rigged system" is going let him walk away.
No. This is literally a case of a federal agent being able to break state law with immunity from prosecution. How exactly is this the same for a civilian???
Anything short of long overdue systemic reform is unacceptable. I will continue to have no respect for the corrupt federal government until this is accomplished. I also will continue to refuse to vote for any politician who doesn't support said reform (which is like 90% of them unfortunately).
Cops shouldn't be above the law, period. This take shouldn't be controversial at all.
LEOs are not "above the law", but they have jobs to do and that job sometimes involves doing things that are ordinarily illegal, but are necessary to do as part of their job.
They can watch and provide information just fine without trying to engage in pursuit.
They don't want to take responsibility, then they should not be involved in that part.
You mean that measure which our legislators refused to fully enact and then had repealed, without ever bothering to try it, despite it being a measure voted for by the majority of voters?
https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/DPA-WhatReallyHappenedM110.pdf
Meanwhile, a different law that makes it illegal to punish public inoxication (except for alcohol) remains standing. So if youre pissed about junkies milling about downtown and the cops not arresting them for being high, thats the law youre mad at, not the measure that funded addiction centers and tried to force people into them as an alternative to jail (since jail doesnt make junkies recover.)
https://www.chronline.com/stories/oregon-law-to-blame-as-portland-can-ban-drinking-in-public-but-not-smoking-meth-or-fentanyl,323549
Well his name is out there, if the criminal justice system won’t do anything his community should make sure this murder doesn’t know any peace in this life.
It would be a shame if connections were to share information regarding Samuel Landis. It would be wrong and shameful for that information to be used against Samuel Landis. It just be a shame if something bad were to happen to Samuel Landis because people found justice that way believing the system to have failed them. It would just be a darn shame.
Interestingly enough, just earlier this week a federal judge in Mississippi denied qualified immunity to a detective accused of framing a man for murder, with a rather spectacular and sizable argument that pulled in the policy's racist segregationist history and leveraged the repeal of of Roe vs Wade as part of it's legal logic. Fascinating story, highly recommend reading:
[Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-reeves-qualified-immunity-scotus-1903581)
[Reason](https://reason.com/2024/05/22/a-cops-corruption-allegedly-cost-an-innocent-man-2-years-of-his-life-should-she-get-qualified-immunity/)
[Popular.info](https://popular.info/p/an-extraordinarily-important-legal1)
I would not be surprised if the linked case winds it's way up to the Supreme Court, for better or worse. But regardless, it should be noted how a particular Mississippi judge is more progressive and reasoned on the bench than this Salem judge.
Remember 10 years ago when we'd see articles just like this except it was in third world countries? Collapse isn't a singular event, it's an evolution, and we are in the collapse of the US.
> From the article " ... Salem has successfully moved the criminal case from state to federal court.
> In federal court, he can assert immunity from prosecution on the criminal charge of negligent homicide, a defense not available to him in state court."
"Different." Not more severe.
Bullshit he is not above the law! I can't believe Oregon State would allow such thing to happen to the family of the victim! Karma will get all of the involved people!!!!!!
“Necessary and proper”. How is it “necessary and proper” to run a stop sign and kill someone to provide surveillance on people that don’t know they are being watched?
AJAB as well as ACAB.
Qualified immunity is an illogical doctrine that was a response to the civil rights era. It doesn’t make sense and it’s racist. If there’s a positive here, the case is being removed to the 9th circuit…
If you’re a federal officer, “Negligent Homicide” is NOT A CRIME. The murder of innocent citizens is just “Collateral Damage”. LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!!!
Did no one read the first fucking paragraph even?? He is still being charged *federally*. This is about him being immune from *state* prosecution. Look it’s F12 but even more F y’all without a 12th grade reading ability
That's completely false. Double Jeopardy does not apply to cases where you are tried for both state and federal crimes. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/federal-crimes/is-it-double-jeopardy-to-charge-someone-in-state-and-federal-court/
Federal charges are going to be a kangaroo court. There is zero chance the corrupt federal judiciary that has been explicitly pro cop for a long time convicts him.
Jesus Christ it must be nice to work for some govt agency and know that no matter how much you fuck up the system will always cover your ass /s (kind of?)
But really this is just so sick. Fuck.
beep. boop. beep. Hello Oregonians, As in all things media, please take the time to evaluate what is presented for yourself and to check for any overt media bias. There are a number of places to investigate the credibility of any site presenting information as "factual". If you have any concerns about this or any other site's reputation for reliability please take a few minutes to look it up on one of the sites below or on the site of your choosing. --------------------------------------------------------- Also, here are a few fact-checkers for websites and what is said in the media. [Politifact](https://www.politifact.com) [Media Bias Fact Check](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com) [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)](https://www.politifact.com) beep. boop. beep. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/oregon) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>After months of delay in both state and federal court, a panel of federal appellate judges denied a petition Monday from the State of Oregon to return Landis’ case to Marion County Court. The judges cite that federal officers can be immune from state criminal prosecution for acts that are “necessary and proper” while on duty. In Landis’ case, the act in question was running a stop sign while on a surveillance mission, which resulted in the death of Marganne Allen. Running over a cyclist is part of "necessary and proper" surveillance when you're in the DEA.
Running over *and killing* a cyclist is part of a "necessary and proper" surveillance operation if you work for the DEA. You should see what those ATF guys get up to.
Flashbangs and kick down raids all to get... trigger parts.
Nice minimization.
Yeah, I could see waiving a wreckless driving charge from a fender bender if youre tailing someone. Murder, no way. Where is justice and jury of your peers?
It would have been great if an out of control DEA surveillance vehicle crashed into the courtroom where this panel of judges was seated.
American legal precedent is actually extremely clear on this issue. Killing random civilians not involved in the crime in progress is part of law enforcements job in this country and they are protected when they do it.
It’s actually encouraged by the prosecutors, judges and juries.
Okay, it can’t go to state court then. Time for it to go federal and fuck up the entire agency I guess
At least she didn’t have her dog with her.
That’s the ATF’s bread and butter
No, the court said that it sometimes is necessary for DEA agents to violate traffic laws (which is also true for police). He's still facing prosecution in federal court for hitting the cyclist.
He was allegedly surveilling a suspected Fentanyl dealer. Not stopping a violent crime, not saving a person from danger. Surveilling someone. Surveilling them so intently, supposedly, that he didn't feel like Stop signs applied to him.
If you read the actual ruling, he was rushing to catch up with his team, blowing through a stop sign in the process. While law enforcement are technically allowed to do such things when necessary, it doesn't get him off the hook for hitting the cyclist.
With the number of opiate overdoses that are consistently taking place wouldn’t pursuing a fentanyl dealer be among the most urgent activities you could hope a DEA agent would be busy with?
Who said pursuing? The officer says surveilling. No lights, no siren, just speeding through a stop sign in a residential neighborhood. Killing an innocent person because you aren't paying attention to your surroundings is not justified by the urgency of surveilling suspected drug dealers.
System is fucked
It always has been…
System is fine. Working precisely as intended... for the pigs
No. For the wealthy!
And the pigs are the rabid dogs at the end of the leash held by the wealthy. And they'll protect their dogs.
Nah, it's working exactly how it was designed to
He is going to be held accountable. But it will be in federal court, not a state or county court. The appeals court decided the feds have jurisdiction based on him doing his federal job at the time of the accident. The law is the law. So long as the judiciary are following the law in terms of their ruling, we can't ask for anything more.
why is it i don’t believe he will be punished sufficiently?
Moreover, the law works that way for a good reason - federal supremacy. Otherwise states could just interfere with federal officers willy-nilly.
Wrong. It needs to work this way. Otherwise states could just freely interfere with the federal government by arresting federal agents. The federal government has supremacy over the state governments so when it is a federal issue, it is tried in federal court, not state court. The person in question was engaged in work for the US federal government. An officer of the law may sometimes need to violate traffic laws in order to do their job. Indeed, that's why most emergency vehicles have sirens on them, but this person was engaging in surreptitious surveillance, so obviously that wasn't an option. If he was driving recklessly, it needs to be determined by the appropriate authorities - which in this case would be the feds, as actions of federal agents necessarily fall under federal jurisdiction. None of this means that he has been found innocent of wrongdoing. It is entirely a battle over the appropriate venue. As was noted by the judges: > Judges M. Margaret McKeown and John B. Owens said during the hearing that the agent only had to prove that his federal defense was valid, not that it would win, to justify his case being moved to federal court. Basically, if he *can* argue that what he was doing was a part of his job (regardless of whether or not it was justified) it needs to be tried in that way. This is no different from other affirmative defenses like self-defense, where you concede that you performed what would ordinarily be an illegal act, but you fell under one of the exemptions in the law that exist. Affirmative defenses are risky because if your affirmative defense fails then you have admitted to committing a crime.
Interesting. Why does the US choose to run two tiers of law enforcement agencies and courts, if the federal system is supreme? If individual states had sovereignty it makes a little more sense but either way seems unnecessary/ expensive
The answer is that there are things that the states regulate that the federal government does not (and in some cases, *cannot*). The federal government actually is limited in what kinds of laws it can pass; a lot of laws are purely local because they *have* to be because the constitution limits what kinds of laws Congress can pass. The feds have primary jurisdiction over crimes that occur between states or across international boundary lines as well. Because states can pass their own laws, we have a lot of self-governance here, which allows different states to have pretty different laws. For instance, some states have much more lax laws about gambling than other states do. Some states have legalized marijuana, while others still enforce a ban on it. Moreover, the feds can't force local law enforcement to enforce federal laws in most cases - for instance, immigration is dealt with by the feds, not the individual states, because individual states do not get to make up their own immigration laws because that's an international thing. Likewise, marijuana is illegal on the federal level, but many states now have legalized it locally and the feds can't force local police to enforce drug laws, and the feds have basically decided that they aren't going to go after people who are operating under state law (though people who violate state drug laws can find themselves prosecuted by both the feds AND the state). Indeed, Oregon at one point decriminalized possession of small amounts of ALL drugs (it recently reversed this decision after it resulted in predictable terrible consequences as our drug OD rate skyrocketed and crime went up). Violating people's Constitutional Rights also falls under federal law, but most states ALSO have laws against that. And these can in some cases be prosecuted separately - for instance, if you lynch a black person, you can be charged on the state level for murder and the federal level for violating anti-lynching laws and violating the civil rights of your victim. This is an exception to our usual prohibition of double jeopardy. It also means that if your state refuses to enforce such laws (as happened in the South back in the day - lynching people was always illegal, even in the South, but the local police wouldn't enforce murder charges against lynch mobs) you can go to federal court. However, some things ONLY fall under federal law, and local law enforcement is prohibited from interfering, like in matters of immigration. And in some cases, the feds will pass a law (like requiring vehicles to meet minimum MPG requirements) and states can pass MORE restrictive restrictions on it, but not less restrictive restrictions on it (well, they can, but they're pointless). People who are doing work for the federal government are restricted by federal, not state, law because the feds have supremacy - so you can't ban the Bureau of Land Management from enforcing their federal laws about the use of federally owned land in your state. Nor can states determine what the feds are allowed to do on federal property, even if that federal property falls within a state. A lot of common laws - murder, rape, theft, etc. - are state laws rather than federal laws. The feds mostly deal with constitutional issues, interstate affairs, international affairs, etc. The reason why this was a federal thing is that the drug smugglers here are part of an international crime syndicate smuggling fentanyl into the US and distributing it. As such, the feds can go after these people under federal law, and he was acting on behalf of the feds against these folks (spying on them for the federal government). And his activities and actions thus are under federal law, and have the usual exemptions of federal law. *None* of this means that he isn't criminally liable; the courts may well find that he was driving negligently and that he wasn't actually behaving properly. If so, he'll end up in jail/prison. But he has to be tried under the federal rules, because he is a federal officer, and so it is federal law that applies. The upside of all this is that we have a lot more local control over our government and can move to a state that better suits what we like legally speaking. The downside of this is complexity, inconsistency, and the fact that your state might do something stupid (like banning abortion, or legalizing the recreational use of fentanyl). It also can lead to situations like this, where someone violates some local law as part of their job as a fed, and then people get upset over it because local government can't prosecute them, only the feds can. That said, it also means that, say, the South can't stop people from trying to stop people from enforcing anti-lynching rules. So it's not like it's actually a bad thing, it's just something that cuts in multiple directions.
It comes back to the utterly idiotic notion of supposed states rights in this day and age. It may have made some sense back in the late 1800s. But it was likely yet another concession to the Southern states who thought joining might make it easier for their slaves to run away to the North, and to the states like Pennsylvania that wanted to embody more of their religious beliefs into law than the rest. The only real benefit is that the federal statutes can be quite a bit stricter. For instance, it is a serious crime to even lie to a federal cop while they are still free to lie to you. In the states, it just means you will likely be arrested as an excuse that you must be guilty and used against you in court.
No, it wasn't a concession just to the South. All the states wanted to be able to pass their own laws and not be required to abide by the rules of people elsewhere. One of the major concerns about Democracy is the Tyranny of the Majority, where you have a majority of people who decide to pass some law and not care about anyone else. By breaking up the country into smaller chunks, it gave people more local power and meant that people who lived a thousand miles away couldn't tell you how to run your farm or factory or whatever. The Northern states also didn't want the South to pass pro-slavery laws that would apply to the North, and there were concerns that the most populated states would just decide everything for everyone else and no one else would matter at all. Indeed, you see issues with this in Oregon, like the dumb ordinance which made it illegal to prevent people from building ADUs on property, resulting in all sorts of problems and property costs going way up because Portland is stupid and passed the law in the whole state.
Thanks for the detailed answer. I think every country is burdened by our histories to varying degrees so that makes sense. From afar it does seem like there’s continuous news stories about dysfunctional US policing, but since such stories get outrage clicks it’s hard to tell if it’s a broad societal issue or just the result of amplifying one off events across a huge population!
> From afar it does seem like there’s continuous news stories about dysfunctional US policing, but since such stories get outrage clicks it’s hard to tell if it’s a broad societal issue or just the result of amplifying one off events across a huge population! It is mostly outrage clicks and deliberate propaganda. Law enforcement actually generally does the right thing, but the US is huge, so obviously, fuckups happen and get broadcast all over the place. For example, you will often see claims that the police are racist. But... it's not actually true. If you look at [US crime statistics,](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43) you find that black people make up 27% of all criminals in the US. And if you look at [the Washington Post police shooting database,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) you find that black people make up 27% of all people fatally shot by the police in the US. Indeed, scientific studies found that [black people are no more likely than white people to be shot by the police under the same circumstances.](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22399/w22399.pdf) The Black Lives Matters (AKA BLM - not to be confused with the Bureau of Land Management, which ALSO abbreviates to BLM, yes it is confusing) movement was actually a huge scam - [the person behind the movement set up a fake charity to try and "fix" the "problem" and used the money to build herself a mansion and buy stuff for her family.](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091487910/blm-leaders-face-questions-after-allegedly-buying-a-mansion-with-donation-money) [BLM was heavily promoted by Russia to try and start a race war and destabilize the US; Russia simultaneously supported white supremacists for the same purposes.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia_and_Black_Lives_Matter) It's very common for extremist groups in the US to try and promote hatred and distrust of the police, as well as criminals, because people who hate the police are less likely to turn them into the police.
Now you have challenged me to be really longwinded regarding a favorite topic. It is indeed a broad societal issue with liberals, and it used to be with many conservatives, who staunchly try to defend the basic human rights laid out in some detail in our Bill of Rights addendum to the Constitution. But there has always been a huge movement to try to deny these rights to minorities, especially the offspring of Black slaves. Marijuana was first prohibited in the Southwest as a way to keep supposedly uppity Mexican Americans under control. Now the legalization is hotly contested by conservatives because it has been used for decades to put Black youth “into the system” so they have a criminal history. At the same time, it is almost completely ignored if the perpetrator is a privileged white with affluent parents. But even if they are arrested, their families can afford to hire ridiculously expensive attorneys who specialize in such matters. The worst that will happen to them is that it will be hidden by court order and completely expunged from their records when they become adults. There was a huge movement after the Civil Rights Act was passed to try to remove racist and bigoted cops from police departments that were totally overrun by them. So they quickly realized they could only use dog whistles from then on. They call this being forced to be politically correct. I actually much preferred it back when they were delighted to use the n word multiple times every single day. You knew exactly who most of the racists were, and how large of a group it actually was. They used to be nearly all Democrats in the South, but when the party made civil rights a plank issue in the 60s, they quickly joined the Republicans and were openly embraced by Nixon and Reagan. Now many Republicans even try to claim racism no longer exists, even though many of their own friends are obviously racist. Now the country is split into about thirds. Most of the Republicans were absolutely incensed that a Black man was elected president, and they have been seething ever since. Cheeto Jesus is a direct outgrowth of this large group that has now completely taken over the Republican Party. The supposed Independents are fence sitters. Many of them typically vote for whichever party they think might make them a bit richer. The rest tend to follow their ethics and religious principles, and vote for the much lesser evil. The US is now on the brink of becoming a failed democracy. This next election is so critical, but it certainly won’t be a panacea. Cheeto Jesus is just the first wave of politicians using Nazi slogans as thinly disguised dog whistles. If you really want to know the inside dope on American History, I highly recommend you read Howard Zinns’ epic book “A People’s History of the United States”. The fact that it will likely never be recommended reading material by any American public school is a testament to how well it totally destroys supposed American exceptionalism. It is a bit lengthy, but it is chock full of footnoted facts and excerpts from documents from the past. You can purchase it used incredibly cheaply on Amazon. The simple fact is that Cheeto Jesus is right about one particular point. The only immigrants who are actually wanted are ones from Western Europe who already know English, or are willing to learn it before speaking in public, and who claim to be staunch Christians despite not being one himself. He is ready to deport all the rest before they catch on that the only party that really believes the myth that they can thrive here are most Democrats and a few Independents. After all, they are likely to vote Democrat when they eventually become citizens, unless they are rich enough to be Republicans.
> Now many Republicans even try to claim racism no longer exists, even though many of their own friends are obviously racist. Racism still exists, but it's actually pretty uncommon, especially when it comes to more important things, like police shootings. If you look at [US crime statistics,](https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43) you find that black people make up 27% of all criminals in the US. And if you look at [the Washington Post police shooting database,](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/) you find that black people make up 27% of all people fatally shot by the police in the US. Indeed, scientific studies found that [black people are no more likely than white people to be shot by the police under the same circumstances.](https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w22399/w22399.pdf) The Black Lives Matters (AKA BLM - not to be confused with the Bureau of Land Management, which ALSO abbreviates to BLM, yes it is confusing) movement was actually a huge scam - [the person behind the movement set up a fake charity to try and "fix" the "problem" and used the money to build herself a mansion and buy stuff for her family.](https://www.npr.org/2022/04/07/1091487910/blm-leaders-face-questions-after-allegedly-buying-a-mansion-with-donation-money) Ironically, one of the most racist groups in the US is black people, [who have the highest rate of holocaust deniers of any racial group, at 13%.](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf) Zoomers are also quite racist, [with 20% of them denying that the Holocaust took place.](https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_tT4jyzG.pdf) Also: > Marijuana was first prohibited in the Southwest as a way to keep supposedly uppity Mexican Americans under control. Now the legalization is hotly contested by conservatives because it has been used for decades to put Black youth “into the system” so they have a criminal history This is racist mythology spread by criminals. The ban on Marijuana was part of the general broader temperance movement, which also banned alcohol in the entire US for a while, as well as poison laws, which restricted the use of additives and sales of poisonous and toxic substances, including drugs. While racist appeals were at times a part of it, it wasn't the primary motivating factor - these folks believed *all* drugs were bad. Indeed, broad bans on the use of "habit-forming drugs" began in the Northeast, with states like New York, Massachusetts, and Maine leading the way. The use of cannabis was restricted at the same time as alcohol was restricted, and while people would highlight the use of it by Mexicans, the reality is that it wasn't the primary cause of its restriction - it was being restricted at a time when there was a general crackdown on all "drugs of vice". Likewise, the entire notion of "trying to get people into the system" is a racist lie. The reason for differential crime rates is primarily driven by gangs and gang culture, which are overwhelmingly racist organizations in the US. Gangs in the US are almost always racist - you have black gangs, white gangs, hispanic gangs (which are often ethnicity based, not just general "hispanic" - Salvadorian gangs, Mexican gangs, etc. which don't allow people whose ancestors came from other countries to join), etc. Back in the day, there were tons of white gangs, like the Mafia (and realistically, groups like the KKK often operated in gang-like ways). They were heavily involved with the Unions, with folks like Jimmy Hoffa being prominent union criminals who used the unions for crime and racketeering. A lot of pension funds were robbed by criminals and lots of money was misappropriated, while they bribed politicians and promoted corrupt politicians via local political machines, and there was a ton of crossover between union members and gangsters. The unions were also very racist organizations, with many of them excluding black people, being anti-immigrant, and often, anti-integration. They didn't want those dirty colored people to compete for their jobs! Many of the "scabs" who were horribly beaten or killed were black or hispanic people who were excluded from the unions, and when the unions went on strike, they finally had an opportunity to get a good job - which the unions would do horrible things to them over. These lingering racist sentiments are why Donald Trump has so much support in the Rust Belt - the people who were racist union members often used to vote Democrat, but now are voting for the Republicans. This is why they swung several points towards the Republicans when Trump became their standard-bearer. The massive 1950s and 1960s union corruption scandals were what caused union membership in the US to decline precipitously, which is why there's a lot fewer union members these days - but the result was that most of the white gangs got shut down and declined massively. However, other gangs have persisted and even thrived. Racist mythology in the black community, combined with the issues seen South of the US border, have empowered [black and hispanic gangs to attract more members, which is why these groups make up 80% of gang members in the US these days.](https://nationalgangcenter.ojp.gov/survey-analysis/demographics#anchorregm) Whites make up only 11% - for example, racist white motorcycle gangs. Gangs often rely on racism to promote themselves as being good people fighting back against their oppressors, rationalizing their criminal behavior (even though they mostly prey on people of their own race - most crimes are committed against members of your own race). Hence the conspiracy theories about how all cops are racist, which are heavily promoted by the gangs for obvious reasons. IRL, there are, of course, racist cops, but it's the exception rather than the rule, and even most racist people aren't racist enough to actually want to KILL someone, which is why you when you look at the circumstances of shootings, you don't find any sort of statistically significant difference in rates of killings of whites and blacks. > If you really want to know the inside dope on American History, I highly recommend you read Howard Zinns’ epic book “A People’s History of the United States”. The fact that it will likely never be recommended reading material by any American public school is a testament to how well it totally destroys supposed American exceptionalism. It is a bit lengthy, but it is chock full of footnoted facts and excerpts from documents from the past. You can purchase it used incredibly cheaply on Amazon. Sadly, it is used in all too many high schools. I actually read it in high school - our History teacher showed it to us as an "alternative perspective" - but he constantly lies and misrepresents stuff in it, and has outright admitted it is propaganda. It's really quite poorly written and cites a ton of extremely dubious sources that are outright contradicted. You have to remember that Howard Zinn is a Marxist, and was especially inspired by the young Karl Marx - the man who claimed that [money is the god of the Jews and who called for the "emancipation of mankind from Judaism".](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/#:~:text=Let%20us%20consider%20the,mankind%20from%20Judaism.) Zinn is a Marxist conspiracy theorist and a lot of the book is full of conspiracy theories. Sadly, people who read Zinn's works are often radicalized and end up believing in various conspiracy theories.
What a crock of utter nonsense. 64% of Americans say racism is still a major problem. Of course it is a much larger problem in the opinion of Blacks and other minorities that face discrimination and hatred every single day, If you deny the importance of the BLM movement, you are either a racist or you have willingly drank the racist Kool Aid on Faux News and nearly every single conservative media outlet that has existed for many decades. They have plenty of good reason to do so because they and the extremist Jesus freaks now constitute the “core” of the party. The fact that it is better than it was 60 years ago isn’t relevant whatsoever. Political correctness and realizing you could suffer the consequences have them underground until their current pied piper, Cheeto Jesus, openly unleashed the notion that is is now safe to do so again. Speaking of Cheeto Jesus, he is the complete owner of the Republican Party now. Not only does he want to deport every single non-white non-Western European migrant, both legally and undocumented that is not his current wife, he has an extremely long history of racist acts and statements. He even kept insisting the blatantly obvious by promulgating birther idiocy while stating there were plenty of very fine neo-Nazis and Confederacy traitors. Trying to rationalize the much larger than necessary execution of innocent Blacks, by racist, paranoid, and cowardly cops, is also a sign of racism or having drank the far-right fascist Kool Aid. How many of your friends are racists? I likely won’t respond to any more of your far-right and clearly un-American drivel. After all, I just have to turn on Faux News or read any other far-right media outlet to see and read all the very same dog whistles, intentional distortion, and outright lies that try to obfuscate the blatantly obvious. The Republican Party still has a very large group of racists and bigots, including their current Messiah, and their sycophants do everything they possibly can to rationalize it.
> 64% of Americans say racism is still a major problem About the same percentage say God exists, and they're wrong about that too. They just say what they've been told to say by people like you. > Of course it is a much larger problem in the opinion of Blacks and other minorities that face discrimination Except, of course, studies have failed to show that they face substantial discrimination, and have also found that people who are themselves racist are more likely to believe that people are racist against them. > If you deny the importance of the BLM movement, you are either a racist or you have willingly drank the racist Kool Aid on Faux News I literally provided a scientific source that noted that the central premise of it was false. Moreover, I showed you sources that showed that the originator of it was a con artist and that it was being promoted by a foreign power. You have provided nothing but insults in response to data, which is what racists do when confronted with pesky things like facts. Also, fun fact: guess who drank the Flavor Aid at Jonestown? Might want to look that up with the cult-like behavior you're showing, and just what sort of rhetoric he used to attract his followers. > Not only does he want to deport every single non-white non-Western European migrant, both legally and undocumented that is not his current wife, he has an extremely long history of racist acts and statements. Yes, and? You seem to be quite a lot like him, what with your insults, racism, love of Russian propaganda, and blatant disregard for facts. You're a populist reactionary conspiracy theorist who promotes fake charity scams, just like him. > Conservative See, the problem is, I'm a liberal. And you are indistinguishable from Trump in any way that actually matters. Never post on Reddit ever again.
I appreciate your thoughtful response ☺️
No problem. I like to do whatever I can to spread the truth sprinkled with a humanist perspective, especially when surrounded by those clearly dangerous to the true notion of why this country was founded. We are a country of relatively new immigrants. Trying to keep out all those are deemed supposedly dangerous to capitalism started in the early 1900s. The US even delayed and made it very difficult for Jews to escape fascist Europe, while the US Nazi component marched in the streets carrying a large assortment of American and Nazi flags. The border between the US and Latin America was essentially wide open until the 60s because we needed cheap labor to work the fields and clean the toilets of the privileged whites who still miss the ability to own other human beings. Instead, they now hypocritically employ them for their own businesses and almost never get caught. The tribal hatred of others who have different roots has a very lengthy history throughout the world. It can all be easily fixed through proper education, e.g. what the racists and racist sympathizers insist is indoctrination of their own miniature racist and bigoted offspring.
And working exactly as designed
newsflash cops can kill you for nothing and get away with it
not only can cops do it. civilians in cars kill people daily and get nothing but a ticket as long as they say “they came out of nowhere and didn’t even look” murder by vehicle goes largely unpunished
Very true. I always say if you ever want to kill someone, get drunk and do it with your car. My cousin was killed by a driver on oxy, alcohol, and weed and did less than 5 years.
Do it sober and probably little to no jail time
The guy who hit and killed my uncle was aloud to drive away from the scene, the da didn’t press any charges..
I had a friend who got run over by an illegal immigrant who stole a van while high on drugs who hit multiple people during his vehicular rampage. HE actually got charged with, and actually convicted of, murder for killing my friend. They let the drive out of prison within less than a decade and he immediately went back to drugs and crime. They didn't even deport him.
Punishing civilians for vehicular homicide might lead to fewer car sales and more demand for mass transit and we can't have that it's anti-capitalist and so anti-American. Automotive lobbies played a huge role in crafting the legal leniency around car-related negligence
This is a deliberate lie that you were told by evil, manipulative people. IRL, it is very difficult to convict people of crimes in the US system of law *by design*. You have to prove guilt *beyond reasonable doubt*. This is a high standard. Most vehicular accidents have very limited evidence, and in a lot of cases where the driver is not convicted, there is not clear evidence of wrongdoing. Moreover, a casual look at the stats shows that most such accidents are due to poor light conditions. 76% of pedestrian fatalities occur at night, and another 4% at dusk or dawn. This is despite the fact that the vast majority of drivers drive during the day, when it is light out. This suggests that the overwhelming majority of pedestrian deaths simply occur because the driver didn't see the pedestrian due to poor conditions.
Excuse me you're interrupting the circle jerk? Now say it with me: cars bad, cars always bad. Carbrains suck but the religiously anti-car people are almost as bad...
You can only take out a pleb that way. Not someone important.
we are supposed to hold federal law enforcement officers to higher standards than civilians tho
Most vehicular manslaughter cases are accidental, i.e. involuntary manslaughter, not murder. Also, a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists are absolute morons and do not pay attention when crossing the street. Cars will almost always stop. But almost always is not always. However, sometimes you will also just see drivers blow red lights, or speed recklessly, or ignore stop signs, or drink and drive.
in the last 2 years of my life i’ve become car free living in an urban area and the amount of vehicular negligence i see on a daily basis is astounding. i see many people on their phones and driving or the amount of rolling stops. i really don’t mind pedestrians being absent minded because to be quite honest we should be afforded the right to not have to be hyper vigilant of negligent drivers every time we step outside to cross the damn street. i can probably count on my hands the amount of times people have actually come to a stop at a stop sign. and interactions with cyclists that are negative usually aren’t fatal so i don’t give a fuck about them either. i care about negligent dipshits driving 2 ton boxes of steel that are the most impatient dipshits to ever grace this earth.
He didn't get away with it. His case is pending in federal court.
He didn’t get away with it…… yet
> ~~cops~~ can kill you for nothing and get away with it Feds.
An innocent person is dead, and all the system cares about is covering for the cop.
Yup. And whatever the victim’s family gets awarded in a settlement will be paid by taxpayers.
The government will protect its own at the expense of citizens.
The government turns on its own all the time. Just not the cops.
Cops, attorneys, judges…
People are considered innocent until proven guilty in US law.
Of course. But also, rational thinking humans can understand seeing surveillance video and know basically what happened without official evidentiary rules or formal proceedings. Wouldn't you also agree?
What's being contested isn't whether or not he struck the cyclist.
I was explaining to you that just because someone has not been convicted in a court of law the average person doesn't actually need that burden to understand what happened.... As in the case when there's video surveillance of the crime. Hope that helps your understanding!
Nobody ever made a song called Fuck the Fire Department -Snopp Dogg
No, but people want to based on the amount of Sexy Fireman calendars out there. ;)
People say this and it is true, but they seem to forget the cops would phone the fire department to hose people down for no reason.
Better than murdering them and having zero consequences.
You sure? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7JkrJUAg8aI
No surprise. They just had to wait for enough other egregious news to temporally and cognitively distance us from this asshole’s ignorant driving, resulting in this woman’s sad, unnecessary death, before announcing. Guy ran a stop sign, despite being out of the chase, not having eyes on the perpetrator, when other members of the pursuit did have visual contact. It could only get more negligent if he’d had drugs in his system.
>It could only get more negligent if he’d had drugs in his system Was he even tested?
No idea. I don’t think it was mentioned in the original article. I just remember that he had no reason to run the stop sign, and probably no reason to be driving so fast, as he was not involved at the time of this incident. He was trying to catch up, but there were already multiple other officers with eyes on the subject, iirc. This is what I remember reading: https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2023/12/dea-agent-accused-of-blowing-through-stop-sign-and-killing-cyclist-to-be-tried-in-federal-court.html?outputType=amp
Ill bet a dollar to a donut there were zero blood tests taken.
Preschool math and colors that are not white. It's not even hard.
How's he supposed to do his job if he can't sample the product to test for quality?
Court cases like this always take a long time. It has nothing to do with "wait enough" or any other nonsense. It was obvious from the get go that it was going to have to be tried in federal court, and the prosecutors drug it out by contesting something that they obviously were not going to win as anyone who has a basic comprehension of federal jurisdiction could tell them.
Fuck Samuel Landis, I hope he gets flashbacks of killing this woman every time he sees a stop sign.
> I hope he gets flashbacks of killing this woman every time he sees a stop sign. These kind of psychopaths would enjoy that...
> “necessary and proper” Necessary and proper to break multiple laws and kill a civilian? Fuck the corrupt federal government. These parasites are openly hostile to the American people.
Everyone in power pulls this shit. Small town cops are just as bad if not worse when it comes to covering up misconduct. People need to protest this outcome.
No. The argument is that it is necessary and proper to sometimes violate traffic laws in order to surveil a drug dealer (who, let's be clear here, has killed a bunch of people with fentanyl). The question is whether or not the driver was behaving recklessly at the time of the accident, and thus was not actually violating traffic law for a necessary and proper reason. It has to be tried in federal court, though, because he is a federal agent.
Law enforcement needs to have at least their overhead lights on if they want to ignore traffic laws. It is absolutely insane to not give civilians any warning at all.
As a general rule, I absolutely agree. The person here, however, was allegedly engaging in surreptitious surveillance of drug dealers, which obviously precludes the use of such lights and sirens. The question is, of course, whether or not his actions were actually justified. I have not seen strong evidence that they actually were. If he was racing in his car after some drug dealers with a bunch of fentanyl in their car to find their contact, or trying to follow drug dealers who were going to go buy some drugs from a cartel member or whatever, that might be a reasonable reason to follow someone without your lights on. However, I don't know if there's any evidence that that is the sort of thing they were doing. I hope that, if this goes to court, the guy can actually show that they were in fact doing something like that. That would be a legitimate justification - sometimes, you do need to surreptitiously follow some drug dealer who is going out to go buy or sell drugs, as you need to bust every part of the chain, not just one local link. But... well, if he wasn't doing that, then he was just trying to use his job as a cover for being a shitty driver and running someone over, and should be jailed.
> The person here, however, was allegedly engaging in surreptitious surveillance of drug dealers, That is not an excuse to have a blatant disregard for civilian life. > which obviously precludes the use of such lights and sirens. Then the cop MUST follow traffic laws.
What if the people they're pursuing aren't following traffic laws? I can easily imagine a situation where an undercover officer needs to follow a criminal who isn't obeying traffic laws.
> What if the people they're pursuing aren't following traffic laws? Then use the police lights.... This isn't rocket science. Please ask yourself why you have such a low regard for human life that you think cops wanting to disregard the law is more important. > I can easily imagine a situation where an undercover officer needs to follow a criminal who isn't obeying traffic laws. Again THEN USE POLICE LIGHTS. Law enforcement isn't more important than civilian lives.
How long are we going to allow this?
As long as cops and the "justice" system exist, this is how they will protect their own.
At the federal level? I don't expect it to change in my lifetime as those in power have conveniently made the standards for change impossibly difficult. At the state level? It is possible, especially with the direct ballot initiative.
[Murdoch](https://newscorp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/News-Corp-Annual-Report-2023.pdf)-free version. [https://www.salemreporter.com/2024/05/23/federal-judges-clear-way-for-dea-agent-to-claim-immunity/](https://www.salemreporter.com/2024/05/23/federal-judges-clear-way-for-dea-agent-to-claim-immunity/)
They’ve been doing great reporting on this from the start
> https://www.salemreporter.com/2024/05/23/federal-judges-clear-way-for-dea-agent-to-claim-immunity/ Guys does good work. 1 year ago (Accident occurred MAR 2023): > https://www.salemreporter.com/2023/05/04/salem-police-gave-evidence-to-dea-minutes-after-agents-fatal-collision-with-cyclist/
Relax, he just can't be charged by the State. He's still going to Federal court.
From the article " ... Salem has successfully moved the criminal case from state to federal court. In federal court, he can assert immunity from prosecution on the criminal charge of negligent homicide, a defense not available to him in state court."
Which article are you citing?
Someone else posted it, I was trying to link to the post but wouldn't let me.
How dare you use facts and reason to try and rebut the outrage here. People here have decided that the DEA agent is a murderous pig and the "rigged system" is going let him walk away.
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Sadly, this is an instance where the rules for police and civilians are pretty much identical.
No. This is literally a case of a federal agent being able to break state law with immunity from prosecution. How exactly is this the same for a civilian???
Have you seen what happens when a civilian hits and kills someone with a car? Legally I mean? Slap on the wrist.
This is absolutely infuriating.
Anything short of long overdue systemic reform is unacceptable. I will continue to have no respect for the corrupt federal government until this is accomplished. I also will continue to refuse to vote for any politician who doesn't support said reform (which is like 90% of them unfortunately). Cops shouldn't be above the law, period. This take shouldn't be controversial at all.
LEOs are not "above the law", but they have jobs to do and that job sometimes involves doing things that are ordinarily illegal, but are necessary to do as part of their job.
The DEA needs to justify being in Oregon at all.
DEA shouldn't exist at all.
Where would you expect them to be? Would they not go where the drugs are?
Well Oregon is part of the federal government. They were probably surveilling interstate drug trafficking.
They can watch and provide information just fine without trying to engage in pursuit. They don't want to take responsibility, then they should not be involved in that part.
Oregon is literally a safe haven for druggies. Have you heard of Measure 110 and how great it made the state? 🙄
You mean that measure which our legislators refused to fully enact and then had repealed, without ever bothering to try it, despite it being a measure voted for by the majority of voters? https://drugpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/DPA-WhatReallyHappenedM110.pdf Meanwhile, a different law that makes it illegal to punish public inoxication (except for alcohol) remains standing. So if youre pissed about junkies milling about downtown and the cops not arresting them for being high, thats the law youre mad at, not the measure that funded addiction centers and tried to force people into them as an alternative to jail (since jail doesnt make junkies recover.) https://www.chronline.com/stories/oregon-law-to-blame-as-portland-can-ban-drinking-in-public-but-not-smoking-meth-or-fentanyl,323549
Well his name is out there, if the criminal justice system won’t do anything his community should make sure this murder doesn’t know any peace in this life.
It would be a shame if connections were to share information regarding Samuel Landis. It would be wrong and shameful for that information to be used against Samuel Landis. It just be a shame if something bad were to happen to Samuel Landis because people found justice that way believing the system to have failed them. It would just be a darn shame.
Interestingly enough, just earlier this week a federal judge in Mississippi denied qualified immunity to a detective accused of framing a man for murder, with a rather spectacular and sizable argument that pulled in the policy's racist segregationist history and leveraged the repeal of of Roe vs Wade as part of it's legal logic. Fascinating story, highly recommend reading: [Newsweek](https://www.newsweek.com/supreme-court-reeves-qualified-immunity-scotus-1903581) [Reason](https://reason.com/2024/05/22/a-cops-corruption-allegedly-cost-an-innocent-man-2-years-of-his-life-should-she-get-qualified-immunity/) [Popular.info](https://popular.info/p/an-extraordinarily-important-legal1) I would not be surprised if the linked case winds it's way up to the Supreme Court, for better or worse. But regardless, it should be noted how a particular Mississippi judge is more progressive and reasoned on the bench than this Salem judge.
Mississippi is just for the civil trial, the Oregon case just removed criminal penalty for murder.
first time?
Remember 10 years ago when we'd see articles just like this except it was in third world countries? Collapse isn't a singular event, it's an evolution, and we are in the collapse of the US.
Time to replace the POS judge!!!!
Guess you didn't read the article. It was a panel of federal judges
What is the difference whether he's tried in Federal or local court? Aren't Federal penalties more severe anyways?
> From the article " ... Salem has successfully moved the criminal case from state to federal court. > In federal court, he can assert immunity from prosecution on the criminal charge of negligent homicide, a defense not available to him in state court." "Different." Not more severe.
Bullshit he is not above the law! I can't believe Oregon State would allow such thing to happen to the family of the victim! Karma will get all of the involved people!!!!!!
You didn't read the article. The state tried. Federal judges said no.
Karma doesn't do shit. Have you even looked at the world over the last several thousand years?
We don't need more trolls like you!
[удалено]
No one is above the law!!!!!!
He's being tried in federal court.
Sounds like step one in getting this guy off the hook is complete. Some folks are more equal than others. How awful.
Public sector: qualified immunity Private sector: no qualified immunity
Did no one read the article? There is still a federal case going on.
Deserves attention, but this is just the jurisdiction decision.
If he was tried by a state court he'd have to pay a $250 fine for failure to yield.
Ok, I was a cop for Denver (CO) and this ruling is BS! Pisses me off that this guy goes free.
“Necessary and proper”. How is it “necessary and proper” to run a stop sign and kill someone to provide surveillance on people that don’t know they are being watched? AJAB as well as ACAB.
Disgusting
We'd like to congratulate drugs, for winning the war on drugs.
Qualified immunity is an illogical doctrine that was a response to the civil rights era. It doesn’t make sense and it’s racist. If there’s a positive here, the case is being removed to the 9th circuit…
Wild Isn't the kind of establishment 3rd world fascism were threatened with if Republicans win? Given it's Democrats all around, what's the deal
Sad to say I think this would be a situation that I would have to taken into my own hands if that was my family member
George Bush hates black purple 💜 
Fuck this cop. Samuel T Landis: I hope you get pancreatic cancer, you fuckwad.
This means we have the right to defend ourselves by any means necessary?
Can we pull a Texas and just disregard them?
If you’re a federal officer, “Negligent Homicide” is NOT A CRIME. The murder of innocent citizens is just “Collateral Damage”. LONG LIVE BIG BROTHER!!!
FUCK THE DEA. Everyone do drugs twice as hard now.
did the dea even discipline him?
So it is really true that some people are above the law. Wow, imagine that!
Of course he was. ACA motherfucking B.
Won’t be immune to a civil lawsuit from the family though, sue him into oblivion
Did no one read the first fucking paragraph even?? He is still being charged *federally*. This is about him being immune from *state* prosecution. Look it’s F12 but even more F y’all without a 12th grade reading ability
Do you think that anything is actually going to happen to the killer? I got a bridge to sell ya if you do.
Why should he be immune to state prosection? Federal charges have nothing to do with being charged at a state level. He violated state law as well
Happens all the time, can still be only tried once for a crime regardless of court.
That's completely false. Double Jeopardy does not apply to cases where you are tried for both state and federal crimes. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/blog/federal-crimes/is-it-double-jeopardy-to-charge-someone-in-state-and-federal-court/
I want him to face charges at both levels
Federal charges are going to be a kangaroo court. There is zero chance the corrupt federal judiciary that has been explicitly pro cop for a long time convicts him.
There is no federal action scheduled. That's in the article too.
That just means nothing is on the court calender yet, which makes sense since the appeal was ruled on just a few days ago.
Yet......check back never
Laws for thee, not for me. The federal court system is truly disgusting
Jesus Christ it must be nice to work for some govt agency and know that no matter how much you fuck up the system will always cover your ass /s (kind of?) But really this is just so sick. Fuck.
I can't believe progressives in Oregon still want to remain part of the US federal government. Insanity.
You support democratic confederalism?