So my info comes only from the talking head on CNN and they specifically did not mention anything about compensatory judgments, so I’m assuming the 4 million will be paid. The punitive limit is 750k per plaintiff though so expect that to end up in court. The attorney for them said the limit may be unconstitutional (Texas state constitution) so stay tuned.
@Heisenberg 
I mean that’s horrible, but I’m laughing 100% at him and I hope he goes to gaol for a long long time.
This whole damn country needs mental help.
This allowed the threat actor to create profiles of 5.4 million Twitter users in December 2021, including a verified phone number or email address, and scraped public information, such as follower counts, screen name, login name, location, profile picture URL, and other information.
If you want, and anyone else curious :
In Texas punitive damage are limited at two time the economic damage per defendant with no upper limit, and one time the noneconomic damage as decided by the jury with an upper limit of 750 000 usd.
The trial is a “motion for sanctions for intentional destruction of evidence”, so doesn’t seem to have incurred economic damage.
(not a lawyer, even less in US specific law, but I have to work with them).
Alex Jones (and his organisations) have two other jury trials coming, one also in Texas and one in Connecticut. They are also “just” to decide damage, since he already was found guilty by default.
§ 52-245 False statement concerning a defense. Double costs, if judgment in favor of plaintiff and court is of the opinion that defendant filed an affidavit or made a statement without just cause or for purpose of delay. (Discretionary with the court.)
In addition :
According to the Bodner Court,
in limiting punitive damages awards to the costs of litigation less taxable costs, our rule fulfills the salutary purpose of fully compensating a victim for the harm inflicted on him while avoiding the potential for injustice which may result from the exercise of unfettered discretion by a jury (222 Conn. at 492 (quoting Waterbury Petroleum Prods., Inc., 193 Conn. at 237-38)). Punitive damages do not, however, include costs incurred in defending a subsequent appeal (O*'Leary v. Indus. Park Corp.,* 211 Conn. 648, 651 (1989)).
If you want to what else will arrive Jones way :
How is that crazy? Police already have either shotguns or assault rifles in their car and the article says the safes are so the deputies can save time if needed. They have some sort of breaching tool as well in the safe.
The article makes it clear the safe contents are for the police who are already stationed in the building. I’ll take this over armed teachers, armed students, or cops who are suited up like storm troopers all day every day patrolling the halls.
From my perspective, it’s just a crazy situation overall with seemingly very few solutions that are all rather ineffective. The fact that firearms being put in schools is the chosen path of action (at least in the county mentioned) just seems utterly mad. I’ve seen firearms in real life probably under a dozen times, so guns being distributed in general is foreign to me. Even then, “more guns”, regardless of the situation, doesn’t sound like the best of ideas.
the solution is painfully simple, it’s just the political will is going the opposite direction because of straight up bribery “lobbying” groups.
It’s crazy because it’s a direct response to Uvalde, where the problem wasn’t a lack of guns or equipment, it was a lack of leadership and the will to do anything while children were dying.
It’s crazy because it feeds into the idea that schools are warzones and that children need to feel afraid everyday instead of addressing the actual causes of those fears. This does nothing but, maybe, treat a symptom and completely ignores the disease.
It’s crazy because, after Uvalde, there was a poll that found that half of Republicans thought that school shootings are something that we “just have to live with” and this kind of bullshit just feeds into that kind of dangerous defeatism. (This reminds me so much of all the useless–or worse–“tough on crime” posturing from politicians in the 90s.)
It’s crazy because there are a billion potential ways to mitigate gun violence–robust gun control and a readily accessible mental health care system, to start with–and, I’m sorry, but more guns just isn’t fucking one of them.
That’s simply not realistic in the US. There is an ever so slim chance that the Dem Senators decide to undo the filibuster and pass an assault weapons act, but even if they did there are already 2.5-3.7 million AR-15 type riffles in the country (that number is from 2012) and then all the other firearms on top of it.
To your point about Uvalde, yea those cops screwed it up. They did it like 100% opposite of what all the manuals have said post columbine. This NC county is assuming their cops would handle the situation better, and you can’t blame them for that. All the other well publicized situations like that involve police following the procedure.
I hear you when you say it’s defeatism to try and treat it instead of cure it, but the people who run the school district can’t change the gun laws. They operate within a set of circumstances and with those in mind the safes don’t seem like a bad idea.
i dunno, man.
that kind of sentiment seems actively promoted to discourage the implementation of stricter gun controls… and sell more guns.
fatalism, defeatism, whatever you want to call it, it only benefits the status quo, and the status quo wants to sell more guns.
australia had around a million registered guns (someone correct me here) floating around and managed to implement stricter gun controls. i know the us has this notion that its relationship with guns is somehow more special compared to the rest of the world (i wonder who stands to benefit from that kind of thinking…?), but they really don’t. it’s a convenient myth.
it’ll be a slog, undoubtedly, but it absolutely could be done if the shitheads would get out of the way. they won’t because the incentives are too good. regular massacres are good for their bottom lines.
it’s insane!
The right to have guns is so entrenched in some people’s minds that they couldn’t possibly allow it to be taken away from them or restricted. The sheer amount of guns in circulation would require gun collections run by local authorities or gun amnesty, neither of which would do too much because of the attachment people have to firearms and the strength of their beliefs around them. Any schemes like that would be perceived by quite a few people as an attempt to stop the public from rebelling and steer the government into a position of total power, and would be strongly opposed. That’s just from the perspective of gun owners: there are plenty of people who benefit from firearms being less restricted, and the amount of sway bodies like the NRA have over politicians (via sponsorship etc.) doesn’t help the situation.
I don’t think it’s hopeless, but it certainly looks dire.
This is why the safes aren’t a bad idea. Pretend that tomorrow all the US gun laws change. Overnight guns are illegal AND pretend that we implement (like Australia did) a pretty decent buy back program to expedite getting these things off the streets. The threat doesn’t just vanish. There would undoubtedly be more mass shootings in the years it would take to get all the guns out of civilian hands. Why not give the school police officer an extra tool?
yeah, i can’t say i disagree with any of your post, but i think the potential of widespread violence is a potent ‘threat’ that benefits certain groups, rather than being a foregone conclusion.
they were worried about exactly the same thing in australia:
“There were fears that the mandatory buyback would provoke resistance: During one address to a crowd of gun rights supporters, Howard wore a bulletproof vest. Thankfully, fears of violence turned out to be unfounded.”
it is going to take serious work, it may even require a concerted group effort to uh ‘manufacture consent’ long before putting the legal wheels in motion, but it can be done.
fuckers sent a dude to the moon, ferrchristsake! 
the more guns you add to a given situation, the more people can die… and the more money gun manufacturers make. if you’ll forgive the glib analogy, it’s basically extra salt on the chips to sell more drinks.
btw changing the gun laws overnight would be an insanely irresponsible and stupid way of approaching it. that seems like an nra style rhetorical tactic to bias the argument (edit: to clarify, i’m not accusing you of anything, just suggesting the origins of the argument). no one is advocating that, least of all me, and it isn’t worth considering even in the hypothetical.
Yea man. I didn’t mean to suggest it happen that way. It was just meant to articulate that even with such changes to the legal framework, we still have way too many assault type weapons laying around (you might say way too many weapons full stop, but that discussion is for a different day). Thus the threat of mass shootings would persist.
As it is the process would be long if it happened. 38 states would need to pass an amendment to remove the right to bear arms and Wyoming and Rhode Island with their tiny populations count the same as Texas and California with their giant populations.
sure, but over time the frequency of that threat would reduce as more guns were taken out of circulation, as opposed to now where it increases year on year. that seems like a no-brainer to me.
A tale of 2 parties: Labour planning some intervention soon to tackle the oncoming Winter energy crisis. Meanwhile, Johnson is on holiday, apparently deciding to do very little in his last month as PM, whilst the Tories obsess over the leadership race.
…an “enigmatic end for an enigmatic premiership”, according to one of the country’s best-known contemporary historians.
It is worth noting that the historian’s four last works were all on Tory PMs Blair*, Cameron and May with one on liberal zombie known as Gordon Brown.
*I know what you are thinking and I am saying I made no mistake so don’t even start.
Not sure what that has to do with the main point. The country is clearly heading towards a crisis point with the rise of the energy price cap in October. Johnson may be finished but since there is still a month until his successor has been decided, it should be his responsibility to do something rather than just lazily wait to let the issue not be his problem.
Just extremely frustrating.
Meat was pointing out why the historian was softening Johnson going AWOL, I pointed out the reason the historian did it was because he is obviously partial to the Tories. Either way it says a lot about Blow Jo’s leadership when him not leading or even being in the UK at all is absolutely no different than when he was actually there.