You are aware that legislatures cannot be held directly criminally responsible for the laws they pass, right?
I'm not disputing that their actions killed their daughter, I'm trying to explain to you that they cannot be held legally responsible in the manor you're suggesting.
What are you talking about?
Are you saying that instead of suing the hospital, she should start up a PAC to go after hundreds of Texas state politicians...?
Because if you meant sue them for wrongful death, they are exempt. So even if they are more directly culpable in their daughter's death, she cannot bring direct legal action against them for that.
As risky and escalatory as it is, I can at least understand using freight airplanes to deliver incendiary packages to shipping warehouses.
I'm not saying I think it's good, but I can at least piece together the rationale for such actions from Russia.
The same cannot be said for blowing up civilian airliners.
Just from a realpolitik perspective, domestic support for military aid to Ukraine is broadly down across the voting populace in most, if not all, of Ukraine's biggest ($$$$) partners. Eventually that will likely result in the election of candidates who reflect that view.
Want to know the fastest way to not just immediately reverse that, but have 75%+ of the voting populace support radically escalating Western involvement? Blow up one of their civilian airliners.
Shit, blow up a French airliner and I'd say it would be coin flip whether they deploy active duty military ready for combat operations, in theatre, within a month.
Downing a civilian aircraft with a SAM battery, or MANPAD, near an active conflict, is galaxies apart from planting explosives on civilian airliners.
And I don't mean legally speaking, although it is, I mean they aren't even in the same universe when talking about blowback, politics, military responses, threat management, PR, escalation ladders, etc.
Yes, I specifically excluded sanctioned/lawful wildlife management practices.
Unfortunately you'll see this a lot with polar bears, which is one of the reasons why proper waste management is so critical in Arctic towns/villages.
Poor waste management practices are capable of attracting more than just polar bears, but they are the most dangerous, for a host of reasons.
You wanted to engage on the topic of hunting. But you expected to be the only one allowed to be asking questions.
So instead of answering the one question asked of you, you generate bogus reasons to justify why you're above responding to any questions about your motivations, or knowledge/experience of the subject.
I'm not sure you even know what subsistence hunting is. Maybe you know the definition, but not the context. It seems like you assume everyone lives in an urban area, and can live a vegan lifestyle by going to the grocery store.
From eating them and growing up in an area with a lot of subsistence, and sports, hunting.
You mean you don't find merit in them. But I'm done, because at least I tried to answer your questions. Where you made no attempt at answering the one question I've asked you twice.
Which itself is answer enough.
People who hunt prey for trophies, and waste the meat, are also pieces of shit. It's called wanton waste, and it's illegal.
But no one hunts predators for their meat. They hunt them for sport. They hunt them because they get a joy from killing them, and for no other reason. I'm not sure what you're not getting about this. They only keep the meat, because again, it's wanton waste and it's illegal.
Bear meat is disgusting. Predators do not taste good. They're killed so weak men can feel strong. They hunt predators because they enjoy killing for the sake of killing, and for trophies. That's it.
This is the third time I rearticulated the same point, which everyone else here seems to get.
Now that I've done that for you, can you please let me know which one of these you are:
A. Someone who hunts predators.
B. Someone who has no experience with, or knowledge of, hunting.
I think they still have legal requirements about wanton waste, or at least best effort.
The no tag limit makes sense though, as they're an incredibly invasive species and the aspirational goal is removal.
None of this should be considered legal advice, I could be mistaken on the regulations. You should check them out yourself to make sure I'm not full of shit, or confused.
They do. Texas allows ariel hunting of hogs, there's no season, and no tag limit. I know lots of other areas have similar approaches of differentiating hunting laws and seasons when it comes to invasive species.
All the hunters I've known, have been an outdoor guys and nature conservationists, but also conservative usually.
There wouldn't be any press....
No lawyer would take the case. Hell, a lawyer might even get sanctioned for even attempting to file it.
This isn't like an uphill legal battle where there's a process that can draw attention. It's a non-starter.
Pretend you file a lawsuit by filling out a form online, but whenever you try and submit this lawsuit, it goes to 404 not found. You're suggesting they spend thousands of dollars, for a 404 error.
However, suing the hospital, is a very long and drawn out legal process.... So if your goal is to bring attention to the issue, well there you have it.