World News

32075 readers

1033 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

192

Texas border agents allegedly laid the wire traps that ensnared a pregnant 19-year-old woman, as part of Greg Abbott's plan to keep migrants out. (jezebel.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

63 comments fedilink hide all child comments

She had to be cut out of the wire and miscarried soon after.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There is no legal distinction.

Using legality as a gauge for morality is not always the best thing to do, especially when these are law enforcement agencies operating entirely within the law.

no where are barbwire or “razorwire” considered a “booby trap.”

So you're being wilfully obtuse. Nowhere was anyone implying the use of barbed wire is what makes it a booby trap. Every single time it was mentioned, it was clear: it is a booby trap because it is a purposefully hidden device meant to cause harm to those who stumble upon it by accident.

It also does matter the distinction between razor wire and barbed wire. Barbed wire you can hold in your hand. You can grip it, move your hand along it, and indeed are unlikely to be very harmed by encountering it; it is designed as an unpleasant deterrant, not a dangerous one. Razorwire, on the other hand, is designed to cause harm: every part of it is dangerous, and an encounter with it would result in deep lacerations.

But again, it could be barbed wire and my point would stand: the concealment of it is what makes it a booby trap, and what makes it a problem.

[+] [email protected] -6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If you want to talk about morality, then you don't need to even mention legal terms like booby-trap. They are irrelevant. I like Jezebel and I am a militant leftist. I am also for unrestricted immigration while still making crossing at non-official border points illegal. But non of these things matter in my initial argument.
If you think borders/countries should exist, like everyone except for born-too-soon anarchists, then there is no problem here. Jezebel aren't anarchists though. If pressed they will say the disagree with the current US policy on immigration. Not that they all borders should be open at every geographic point of entry.

So they are bringing in legal terms like "booby-trap" to try to muddy the waters instead of saying what their criticism is. Their criticism is that current border-patrol policy's are too harsh (I agree), but securing a border can't be a clean thing. Either a border exists as a State enforced entity or it doesn't. If they want to say that the US should open it's borders, I'm on board, that doesn't mean free crossing into the US at every geographic spot. So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers. If you are against passive barriers then you have to make that clear in the text, but Jezebel didn't do that.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So in order to discourage crossing at non-official crossings, the only answer is passive barriers.

Completely visible barriers would do the trick.

You've somehow, again, managed to miss the point: the purpose was not just deterrence, the purpose was to hide them and cause unexpected harm. I'm not using booby trap to evoke any legality relating to the word; I'm using the word to evoke the horrendously inhumane use of hidden weapons meant to cause harm to those who accidentally stumble upon them.

You're defending a horrific practice in the guise of it being a necessary evil, when in all actuality, it's just one horrific out of many not-horrific implementations of something that you're overtly in favor of.