Prosecutors Refuse to Drop Charges Against Texas 11-Year-Old Put in Solitary Confinement
Prosecutors Refuse to Drop Charges Against Texas 11-Year-Old Put in Solitary Confinement
A school district and local prosecutors in Texas are refusing to drop charges against an 11-year-old who was held in solitary confinement.
Timothy Murray lost his father earlier this year and had been asking his principal for counseling when she called in the police
You're viewing a single thread.
Data from Brownsville ISD seen by The Observer showed its officers made 3,102 student arrests between May 2021 and Nov. 2023. Nearly 60% of those were on felony charges and 76 of those kids were in elementary school.
what the fuck is going on over there
High-speed school-to-prison pipeline. Because inmates=free labour and prisons are for-profit. Gotta get 'em kidz institutionalized as early as possible!
It's the conservative way. They hold these traditions sacred.
I suspect that being born from the wrong vagina is a crime for those people.
It just explains so many things: from their criminalization of abortion whilst taking State support away from poor single mothers to emprisioning kids who don't have a mommy and daddy with the right connections or who can afford the kind of lawyer who would extract a massive compensations from everybody involved in putting a kid in prision like this.
Literally there's an aspect of Evangelicalism and the "Prosperity Gospel" that portrays poor people as inherently sinful and evil, and it's not just limited to those aspects of Christianity:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_poverty_and_wealth
Then you read the Bible and like almost all the references to the rich are negative and like where the heck do people even get this crap from.
Hippie socialist Jesus > Supply-Side Republican/Conservative Jesus
Any educated and intelligent person should see that the prosperity gospel is just greed promotion disguised as religious edicts.
I've run audio for maybe a dozen Prosperity gospel events over the course of my career.. Those people are some of the scummiest people I've ever met in rl. The "preachers" usually have a group of thugs acting as security that will run interference for anyone that questions what they're preaching. I've seen people get literally dragged out and then heard, after the fact, that the "security" team "taught them a lesson". The crowd was shocked that someone was aggressively dragged out at "church" until the preacher spun the victim as someone with the devil in them, then everyone would be nodding their heads with a panicked look like "are we ok with this?.. I guess..". Fucking surreal. Also, these people would try to dodge as many bills as they could. On several of the ones I did, the "church" stiffed the AV company I was working for on a $30k+ production.
Yeah I am actually really curious how they explain that, if anyone has a genuine answer.
There is so much talk in the Bible about riches and wealth and being rewarded for being a good Christian but my memory serves that it's referencing the holy spirit or rather the relationship with God is rewarding in and of itself and that the riches and all that is in the afterlife.
And every time I recall it talking about wealth on earth it is vilified and you're supposed to give it away. And of course there this famous quote
And Jesus said unto his disciples, Verily I say unto you, It is hard for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-26
Anyway yeah I'm curious how people can teach this aspect of the Bible with such a contradicting incorrect interpretation. I argue that it's a contradicting book in itself all the time but wealth is not one I recall. We have hated the wealthy for millenia lol
Pretty sure avoiding "being born from the wrong vagina" is a popular defense of abortion among liberals.
"It just explains so many things" When you're a moron any description of a cause will suffice for the outcome.
I am pretty sure that body autonomy and a women being able to make her own choices about when to start a family are why we support a woman's right to choose.
There is a multitude of reasons why people support abortion. One of the common arguments is that it is better to not exist than to be born poor or to parents that don't want you (I.e literally the "born to the wrong vagina" argument). This is a widely supported belief and I would say that around 20 percent of pro-choice people I've debated (out of hundreds) use it as their primary argument.
Asserting that there is a single reason why people hold a position is absurd.
FYI bodily autonomy arguments have largely been abandoned in academic ethics, because there is just no existing right to bodily autonomy that is sufficiently strong, and we have no basis for arguing that there should be.
Absolutely Parents who do not want to have a baby should not be forced to carry one to term. It ain't some angel that came down and inhabited the womb that should be laminted as lost.
"It ain't some angel"
But it's a human, and we don't find engaging in active killing of humans permissible do we?
I also love that as a pretty open atheist, PC will constantly try to insinuate a religious motivation (even though most PL religious people don't use the ensoulment argument either).
Maybe that's just because it makes sense to not want a massive amount of expenses in a life where they may have trouble taking care of themselves already.
You really act like it's a bad thing to not have children if you can't financially take care of them.
And none of these have to do with targeted killing of human organisms based solely on the circumstances of their conception?
You don't get to play "the conservatives want to kill and imprison poor children" card, when pro-choice liberals celebrate the exact same thing (not pro-life ones like me).
"You really act like it's a bad thing to not have children if you can't financially take care of them"
This argument falls in the same category of logic error that the "abortion is good because it prevents children from being poor" that I am refuting.
The fact that it is bad for people to be poor, does not follow that they should therefore be deprived of existence, because existence is not the cause of suffering but the poverty. When someone says "I wish I wasn't poor", they are NOT saying "I wish I didn't exist" because they could easily make that happen. They are wishing that they had less hardship.
Likewise your argument is also a failure at descriptivism. Not having children for financial reasons, is not immoral. Abortion is not just "not having children", it is an active deprivation of all future experiences of an existing human organism. That's why it's immoral. (And yes trying to argue that fetuses aren't people is insufficient since one can argue from idealized persons {e.g we don't kill mentally ill suicidal people because an idealized person wouldn't want to die, in other words the immediate condition of the human is gladly ignored), or cases of temporary loss of personhood (regardless of how you define it) which would permit killing many if not all adults.
Point is, it's not immoral no matter how much you cry about it now stay out of other peoples lives.
Pretty sure I can rigorously prove that you accept moral principles, empirical facts and a logical system that determines that abortion is infact immoral, you simply never bothered to analyze it.
"Now stay out of other people's lives"
Can you imagine what a horrible (dare I say immoral?) world you would have if immoral actions could not be restricted? Next time someone wrongs you remember that you are the real perpetrator for expecting them to follow your conception of morality.
Abortion is not just “not having children”, it is an active deprivation of all future experiences of an existing human organism
So is wanking into socks. Get over it.
Empirically false. How are you literally so stupid?
there is just no existing right to bodily autonomy that is sufficiently strong
What the fuck is this? Just stop posting.
I already showed that there wasn't if you actually read anything. Nobody seriously contested it.
Funny that the geniuses here haven't been able to do something that has been largely abandoned in ethics.
I already showed that there wasn’t if you actually read anything
First, I haven't found any place where you did this. Second, if you did show that "no existing right to bodily autonomy [is] sufficiently strong", I think you probably need to also show why the law isn't in the wrong, rather the moral beliefs of the people in this thread.
Nobody seriously contested it.
I mean, people are. It's a conversation that's still happening.
...that has been largely abandoned in ethics.
Gonna need a citation on that one, boss.
Anyone else that comes along can follow along in the main conversation with @jasory@programming.dev and myself over here.
"Show why the law isn't in the wrong, rather than the moral beliefs of the people in the thread"
What law? There is no law in discussion here, and an action being immoral does not necessarily entail that a law must exist to prohibit it. (I've already pointed this out, so the fact that you completely ignored it is just laziness)
"the moral beliefs.."
Because it results in a contradiction with their other beliefs. Essentially nobody will ever claim that a contradictory moral system is good, OR that denying a third party the ability to override bodily control in the interest of others (and often that very person, e.g most people think self-harm is wrong) is good. If neither of these are true then a sufficiently strong bodily autonomy cannot be true either.
"It's a conversation that is still happening"
But there are no actual rebuttals. In fact all you did is go back and assert that bodily autonomy actually is relevant, without even addressing the initial refutation.
This is how every single debate about bodily autonomy goes (or really any bad argument). The person will either reject all criticism without any reasoning, or concede all the arguments and play a pseudo Motte-and-Bailey where they continuously switch between arguments they have already conceded were false. Both are simply instances of a person clinging to a belief that contradicts other beliefs they hold, simply because they think it justifies a result they like.
"Gonna need a citation on that"
Wikipedia says that Judith Thompson is credited with changing the view of abortion to a question of autonomy in the public space. What it does not say is that it changed the view of abortion in ethics. (It didn't, it was basically a phase that was pretty quickly moved on from. I also edit Wikipedia so I would have put in it if it did)
Now this is not argument of Wikipedia's infallibility, but it's absence does show that we have no reason to believe that the public's perception of abortion is the same as academic ethics.
So with just this absence of evidence, it is reasonable (but not proven) to say that bodily autonomy is abandoned when it comes to abortion. It is also reasonable to say the converse.
If you actually search academic literature, for as famous as the bodily autonomy argument is it has surprisingly few defences, even pro-choice/pro-abortion (yes they exist in philosophy) ethicists have criticised it. In fact Boonin is probably the most notable defender of it, but even he concedes that it's not very good, discarding it in favor of a "cortical organisation" argument (which I in turn think is an arbitrary selection of a stage of human development that itself doesn't grant personhood any more than being a human organism).
And again the absence of defences, and presence of criticisms makes it more reasonable to think that it is not well accepted.
As for an actual citation, meta-philosophy isn't that popular of a field and you just have to be familiar with the topic to know what I'm referring to. As someone who does research, I can tell you a huge amount of information you want or need isn't neatly collected and more often than not doesn't exist. It could be that there is a vast swath of pro-choice ethicists who use bodily autonomy arguments, which are awfully silent and don't write papers. But based on the evidence it seems like bodily autonomy is truly not a popular argument outside of motivated reasoning by lay persons.
Is this a bot designed to create an example of disjointed unintelligible thoughts?
Pretty sure [...]
Followed by ignorant bollocks about what "those other people" supposedly think.
“It just explains so many things” When you’re a moron
Ah, it's satire.
Well done!
I said a popular defence, not the only defence. Go to the abortiondebate or pro-choice subreddits and count how many people say that abortion is good on the basis of eliminating unwanted children.
Even better make a post asking if abortion is morally good (not just permissible, good) if the child would be born poor or the parents don't want them. You will receive an overwhelmingly positive response, and you know it.
Nope.
People would at most say that of an embrio, not a child.
Unlike what the "every sperm is sacred" crowd thinks against all scientific evidence, a ball of cells with no brain activity is as much a child as a piece of human intestine, a toe or the cells flaking of your skin every minute of the day are: they're all mindless bundles of cells which happen to have human DNA - organic things, not persons.
The non-morons who support abortion actually set a time limit on how late in the pregnancy it is legal to do an abortion exactly because having thought about it, they're aware that a viable embrio will eventually transit from mindless bundle of cells with human DNA into person (though you need to be seriously undereducated to call a fetus at even that stage a "child") and morality dictates that once it's a person their life is sacred.
This is why in most civilized countries abortion is allowed up to 12 weeks: because before that tne embrio has no brain at all and is as much a person as a human toe or kidney, but once it does have some brain activity, whilst we don't really know if and how much of a person that early in gestation it is, we chose to consider it as person just to be on the safe side hence with the right to live.
Only the ultra-simpleton crowd would think that the ball of indiferentiated human cells the size of a pea which is the embrio earlier in gestation is a child.
PS: The funny bit is that the people you're criticizing have the same moral posture with regards to children as you do, the only difference being that they're informed enough and have thought about it enough to know that an early gestation embrio is nowhere near the same as a child hence it makes no sense for the rights of the woman that carries said embrio to be suspended in favour of that mindless ball of cells.
The arguments of the anti-abort crowd really just boil down to "Because I'm too ignorant to understand that which has been known for over a century, other people must be thrown in jail"
This is ontologically and empirically false. I don't really have time for debunking this incredibly self-masturbatory screed, but holy shit you have no idea about categorisation of beings or an arguments about the wrongness of killing. (You're not exactly talking to someone as mentally deficient as you).
The cortical organisation argument is simply cherry-picking a worse instance that satisfies the criteria of possibility of human experience. The fact that it is already a human organism is sufficient, especially since cortical organisation doesn't grant consciousness and even if it did by definition it would fail to describe the wrongness of killing temporarily unconscious humans.
You clearly don't even understand the meaning of the words you're parroting there, to the point that you ended up making the case for even later than 12 weeks abortion.
It really is a case of your own ignorance justifying that others must go to jail.
"You're making the case for even later abortion"
Well of course, the 12-week limit is pure horseshit. Literally nobody in ethics makes this argument it's merely invented by supremely ignorant lay persons to pander to both sides.
You only feel that it is an argument for later abortion, because you are affirming the consequent (a laughably stupid logic error to make) by assuming that abortion is already permissible.
Either killing humans is permissible period or it's not. Dependency and development arguments fail to provide exceptions that don't also apply to adults.
This was what they found in other schools too. One specific location ( I can't remember where) the dads formed a group to a) keep kids peaceful and b) because they were being sent to jail for schoolyard bs. It was a largely black school. If you want to look it up with the sad details my brain is providing. Sry
Yep. Also noticed that the principal that called the police and the DA refusing to drop the case have the same last name. Garza isn't that rare of a last name, but it's not exactly "Smith", either. I'd bet good money those fuckers are related to each other.
Wait, that's just slavery with extra steps!
Not "extra steps" but "plausible deniability"😉
Why ban slavery when we can evolve it?!?
what the fuck is going on over there
Brownsville is 94% Hispanic or Latino. This is Texas doing Texas shit.
Just republican shit.
Murica! Murica! Murica!
So much for that "stay in school" speech...
What % of those kids were assholes?
asshole doesn't mean criminal
I'm just saying... you never had a kid in class that was years older then everyone else, not doing shit, disrupting class all the time, getting violent and ending up in jail for attempt murder just after leaving school? I had. I wish there was a way to get him out of school earlier. I would be a better environment for everyone. But there wasn't so they had to deal with him till he was 18 yo. Then on the other hand if you let teachers kick kids out they will get lazy and start locking up children for anything like in Texas.
Do you know what solitary confinement is? It's putting someone in a cell, likely without furniture, for lengthy periods of time (discounting an hour of exercise by themselves). The light never turns off. There is absolutely no stimulation whatsoever allowed. Other prisoners yell through the air ducts in the hopes that someone will yell back.
That environment is torture for an adult. This is a 10-year-old child.
You really think the general populace is safe for a 10-year old?
Solitary confinement sucks, but in many cases it's done to protect individuals from, you know, the other extremely violent people.
How about not putting them in prison at all?
Then why the fixation on solitary confinement?
If your objection is on imprisonment then argue against that, not the specifics of a certain imprisonment.
Because the kid was put in solitary confinement and I was staying on-topic?
You realise it is morally permissible to provide a more general argument.
Which is a better comment, "steak tastes better with barbecue sauce" OR "I don't like steak, but it tastes better with barbecue sauce"? Doesn't the former suggest a preference of eating steak?
So, to be clear, you support prison and solitary confinement for preteens?
Yes, and babies that cry too much.
If you're trying to be funny, you've taken it too far. You should be yeeted into a Texas prison where you claim immature assholes belong, because this situation isn't a fucking joke.
Holy shit lighten up. It's not even the original poster, the sarcasm was very obviously implied with that comment.
Edit: nvm, I see now they are tag-teaming. Smells like trolls.
Are you for real? I'm seriously asking, because if you are, you need help.
Not in elementary school
Weird, in my case it was only in elementary school. High school was not mandatory so the disruptive kids simply didn't go there.
Edit: Oh, just realized that you probably also have middle school. I didn't. It was the same school from age 7 to 15. Education was mandatory till 18 or 16 yo so the school was stuck with all the stupid kids till then.
Ahhhh right, simple mistake to make. Middle school kids definitely deserve solitary confinement. Fucking what??
I hope that maybe you're just ignorant to what "solitary confinement" means, but even then, you're talking about locking children away in fucking prison for misbehaving in 6th grade art class. Get a grip.
Jesus, who's talking about solitary confinement? Not even the original comment mentioned it. I definitely didn't. Relax. It's a shitty situation but getting angry about things you imagined is not going to save anyone.
Scroll back up and check out the headline of the thread you're posting in...
So reddit of you. Ignore the entire thread, look only at the headline, talking about related things is forbidden, only the headline matters.
The original article is about putting a child into solitary confinement. You don't even need to read the article. But keep moving those goalposts...
Is it really that much harder to just admit you were wrong (or literally just take the L and not respond at all) than doubling down on something so easily disproven?
The mindset is just fascinating to me.
And ladies and gents, we have the 'moving goalposts' comment, it's 'reddit bingo' and we can close this thread. Thanks you everyone.
If being an asshole was illegal Texas would be a prison.
They're working on it...
Texas. The new Australia.
wtf is wrong with you?
Were you never an asshole as a kid? It's part of growing up. We work to make them better, but arresting them does nothing worthwhile.
- Kids are kids. Asshole parents raise asshole adults.
76 arrests of elementary students? Does it really matter? I have a hard time believing any arrest is appropriate for that age
Shouldn't matter. You don't throw kids in jail just because they are assholes.
You're making up 110% of them