A bounty on trans people? So I get paid by the state to catch 'em and turn 'em in so they can be issued their ‘up to $500 fine’? How cost ineffective.
Ah, it’s misinformation and done so poorly, in an attempt to dramatise, they used the wrong word.
So, the $10,000 is actually for lawsuits and can start there if anyone found guilty of the crime had also caused damages. That’s very normal for laws of people being somewhere they’ve been told not to be and damaging stuff. Like if I break the toilet seat I’m standing on while peering over the top of the cubicle to watch you pee.
It’s articles like this that do not help a cause at all.
It can only be assumed this works in favour of anyone on that 5-2 vote that doesn’t like trans people. If that’s the case then it should be attacking gender identity issues for bathroom use, not trespass laws started in 1989 using binaries. (Yes, in an effort to get the actual information, I read other actual news articles)
As far as I can see, the article doesn’t misrepresent this law. It says that anyone has standing to sue a trans person for using a gender-appropriate bathroom, and the damages of at least $10,000 would be awarded if the trans person lost the lawsuit. Normally, as I understand it, you wouldn’t have standing unless someone’s activity had provably harmed you, but by waiving this the door is open for the trans person’s use of a bathroom to be judged harmful in itself. So, a bounty on trans people.
This is in a similar legal realm as the abortion bounty. There are a lot of legal experts who claim that there is no standing, while the conservative judges have held that it is a harm against society at large. So any member of society has standing.
It’s a twisted and dangerous legal framework to establish. It’s already been used to attack the second amendment as well. It’s not good for any political side.
The 10k is the statuatory minimum and its paid from the person just trying to take a piss to the psychopath policing who can piss where who was not in any way damaged. It is not at all normal to pay random people out of the pockets of those breaking the law.
In this case it encourages bigots to attack trans people trying to pee by allowing them to legally rob them if they catch them.
Worse it encourages such attacks whichever bathroom they use. Dress like a girl use the womans room get attacked for using the wrong bathroom, use the mens room get attacked for being a woman in the means room.
Using the bounty as a method of enforcement exists because the law is deemed likely unlawful. It exists explicitly to stop a pre emptive lawsuit against the government to stop enforcement.
A bounty on trans people? So I get paid by the state to catch 'em and turn 'em in so they can be issued their ‘up to $500 fine’? How cost ineffective.
Ah, it’s misinformation and done so poorly, in an attempt to dramatise, they used the wrong word.
So, the $10,000 is actually for lawsuits and can start there if anyone found guilty of the crime had also caused damages. That’s very normal for laws of people being somewhere they’ve been told not to be and damaging stuff. Like if I break the toilet seat I’m standing on while peering over the top of the cubicle to watch you pee.
It’s articles like this that do not help a cause at all.
It can only be assumed this works in favour of anyone on that 5-2 vote that doesn’t like trans people. If that’s the case then it should be attacking gender identity issues for bathroom use, not trespass laws started in 1989 using binaries. (Yes, in an effort to get the actual information, I read other actual news articles)
Are you willfully ignorant or do you not understand how Jim Crow laws work?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/odessa-tx-just-put-10000-bounties
As far as I can see, the article doesn’t misrepresent this law. It says that anyone has standing to sue a trans person for using a gender-appropriate bathroom, and the damages of at least $10,000 would be awarded if the trans person lost the lawsuit. Normally, as I understand it, you wouldn’t have standing unless someone’s activity had provably harmed you, but by waiving this the door is open for the trans person’s use of a bathroom to be judged harmful in itself. So, a bounty on trans people.
This is in a similar legal realm as the abortion bounty. There are a lot of legal experts who claim that there is no standing, while the conservative judges have held that it is a harm against society at large. So any member of society has standing.
It’s a twisted and dangerous legal framework to establish. It’s already been used to attack the second amendment as well. It’s not good for any political side.
The 10k is the statuatory minimum and its paid from the person just trying to take a piss to the psychopath policing who can piss where who was not in any way damaged. It is not at all normal to pay random people out of the pockets of those breaking the law.
In this case it encourages bigots to attack trans people trying to pee by allowing them to legally rob them if they catch them.
Worse it encourages such attacks whichever bathroom they use. Dress like a girl use the womans room get attacked for using the wrong bathroom, use the mens room get attacked for being a woman in the means room.
Using the bounty as a method of enforcement exists because the law is deemed likely unlawful. It exists explicitly to stop a pre emptive lawsuit against the government to stop enforcement.