Michigan parents sue school district for gender swap on their autistic daughter
(thepostmillennial.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (29)
sorted by:
Why is this constantly used as a defense? You're not a robot. If your policy is morally questionable, you are liable for the damage caused by implementing it.
The "I was just following orders" defense hasn't been valid since we hung all those Germans who tried it after WWII.
Unfortunately, from a legal standpoint, it's difficult to hold the specific people responsible if the policy is shit. Hopefully, this incident can result in changing the policy.
Remember when Derek Chauvin followed official police department policy and got life in prison?
Properly restrained a drug addict fraudster who overdosed on the bag of fentanyl he swallowed, waiting for the medics to arrive.
Life in prison.
Makes perfect sense if you step back and analyze it as the working of a government, media and justice system that is profoundly and irrationally anti-White and irrationally pro non-White.
It was a ritual sacrifice.
Because the judge deemed the policy inadmissible in court.
Shit was fixed.
If your laws don't let you directly punish every single person involved in the process of grooming and transing an autistic kid, you've written your laws wrong.
The problem with any written law is that it tells someone how to get around the rule.
Figuring out you have to have a catchall "no shitheads" clause and then also figuring out how to make sure no shithead ever gets to put themselves in a position to enforce that clause is the key to everything.
Indeed. New written law: "Don't kill people". Oooh, perfectly insidious plan, if I... don't kill people, then the law can't touch me! Aha!
Life in prison is the moderate compromise.
One day someone is going to try this with a muslim kid and get their head caved in.
True, government employees are generally immune to personal liability if they're acting within the scope of their employment and following the policies of their employer.
I guess it's the way that it's always presented that cheeses me off. It's not: "employee X was following our policies, and shouldn't be held personal responsible if those policies resulted in harm or violated the law; this is a dispute between the plaintiffs and us". It's "nothing to see here, policies (that we created ourselves) were followed".
Like committing something to paper and doing it regularly provides a magical shield against scrutiny for that conduct.
I believe even private employees a limited form of immunity if they're acting on their employer's orders, following their policies, etc. The idea is that the employer is responsible, so the wronged party should sue them instead. It's usually not a problem for the plaintiff since the employer has deeper pockets anyway.