Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Krayt]

See how Iran has shut down the Internet? This is why we do not want to give our government an "Internet kill switch", you know, "for emergencies".

But blah blah blah.

You're wrong.

But...!

Wrong.

[Kazinski]

I hope you aren't saying emergencies aren't a real emergency:

"The 1976 National Emergencies Act implemented various legal requirements regarding emergencies declared by the President of the United States. As of July 2025, 90 emergencies have been declared; 42 have expired and another 48 are currently in effect, each having been renewed annually by the president."

Now do you understand why we need a kill switch?

[Nelson]

So that the government can shut down communication in the event of what they, in their sole discretion, term an emergency?

We’ve seen from this administration that lying about emergencies is easily done, but not easily remedied.

[Bwaaah]

Ah, yes. Good law, in the wrong hands.

[Kazinski]

And I was thinking I didn't need to put a /sarc tag on that.

I see now of course that I was wrong.

[Commenter_XY]

There is another aspect of Iran that is concerning; namely, The Donald threatening Iran's leadership with death if they violently quell dissent inside Iran. I am not seeing even remotely where targeted assassination of Iranian leadership is a good idea; it invites retaliation in kind.

Since this is a legal blog...What law would be broken if The Donald used targeted assassination to 'protect' the people of Iran and further US national security interests?

And is The Donald immune to prosecution b/c he is POTUS performing his job duties?

Note: I personally don't have an issue with Iran falling apart and disintegrating, and just watching it happen. Iran doesn't have nukes and if Iranians want to duke it out amongst themselves, I say let them. A permanently diminished Iran serves our interest.

[Kazinski]

The only jeopardy he could be in is impeachment, not prosecution.

And an(other) attack on the mullahs would come.under the "short skirt" exception to the War Powers act, same as the July exception did.

[Commenter_XY]

Impeachment is not a demotivator for The Donald. 😉

Bombing a nuke site in one thing; assassinating the leaders of a hostile nation is something else, entirely. Was Qaddafi a 'short skirt' exception to WPA? Would Mossadegh have been a 'short skirt' exception to WPA?

[not guilty]

Mohammed Mossadegh of Iran? In 1953? Twenty years before Congress adopted the War Powers Resolution?

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was adopted in the wake of the fiasco in Southeast Asia by Presidents Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, especially Nixon's widening the conflict into Cambodia.

And BTW, Mossadegh was not assassinated. He lived for another fourteen years after being deposed as Prime Minister.

[Frank Drackman]

Nixon "widened the conflict into Cambodia" because that's where the North Vietnamese Army was, it's like saying FDR "widened" WW2 into France and Belgium.
Where else were we going to fight the Germans? Rangoon?
(I know there weren't any Germans in Rangoon, not even really sure where it is, but it's such a great Country for dirty Limericks
"There once was a man from Rangoon......."
See, it literally writes itself, so many Homophones,
Boon, Coon, Dune, Loon, Moon, Noon, Poon, Rune, Tune,

Frank

[not guilty]

Commenter_XY asked two separate questions: what law would be broken under his hypothetical, and would President Trump be immune from prosecution.

The answers are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1116 and 2, and yes.

[MarkJawz]

18 USC 1116 is not intended to cover official acts.

[Darwinnie]

Then my question is, if he claims immunity, would a Republican Congress say he can’t be impeached?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

To think big picture, beyond the immediate issue:

Trump has probably committed crimes in office that are not official acts, though I think, given the current Supreme Court and other factors, it is likely academic.

[Kazinski]

Tell us what crimes.

Probably is doing a lot of work there.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Probably is doing a lot of work there."

...and you're surprised?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

The average person commits crimes that are unofficial acts, and I think it is likely he did too. He recently noted that only his own morality will restrain him. He has traditionally not been a stickler.

As I noted, it's overall academic for a variety of reasons. I doubt he would be charged for them, and in many cases, that would be quite appropriate.

The comment was to move the conversation beyond official acts and note, academically at least, he probably would still technically be liable even with Trump v. U.S.

[not guilty]

Since this is a legal blog...What law would be broken if The Donald used targeted assassination to 'protect' the people of Iran and further US national security interests?

And is The Donald immune to prosecution b/c he is POTUS performing his job duties?

Depending on the identity of the victim(s), such a targeted assassination could violate 18 U.S.C. § 1116.

Assuming that President Bone Spurs Chickenhawk did not carry out the targeted assassination himself but instead ordered someone else to do so, and assuming that no state of war existed between the United States and Iran, Trump's conduct could violate 18 U.S.C. § 2:

(a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.
(b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal.

And Trump would be immune from criminal prosecution during his term and after leaving office, at least unless he was impeached and convicted by the Senate for such conduct.

[Frank Drackman]

I forgot how Barry Hussein Osama led the raid to kill Bin Laden himself.

[Commenter_XY]

So assume it is Khamenei, and the leadership of the IGRC. Both have said Iran is at war with the US (and Israel). They (Iran) think there is a war. Are they right?

If there is a war (from the perspective of Iran), does it make Khamenei and IGRC leadership 'fair game'? Does it change your argument?

[Davedave]

"I am not seeing even remotely where targeted assassination of Iranian leadership is a good idea; it invites retaliation in kind."

Most people (at least outside the US) would agree that'd be an excellent example of FAFO, with nothing but positive effects for everyone except those inhumed.

[Riva]

The world can thank “The Donald” for eliminating the immediate threat of a nuclear Iran. And now “The Donald “ appears to welcome the end of the Islamo terrorist threat of Iran itself. I note “The Donald” is not sending them pallets of cash like some big eared disgraces who were quite committed to a nuclear Iran.

[Commenter_XY]

Those three statements are true. I do not dispute that. Senator Cotton addressed Iran directly when they signed the deal with Pres Obama back in 2015, telling them the agreement has no legal effect unless Congress ratifies it. Pres Obama never submitted the agreement for ratification to the Senate; it was a bad deal and never would have passed. Time proved Senator Cotton correct.

That background said - I have a huge degree of skepticism wrt involving ourselves in Iran's internal problems militarily. That would include targeted assassinations. You should be very skeptical. Remember: The shoe will be on the other foot, one day. Why not just let Iran collapse and get smaller (breakaway ethnic republics)? That serves our national interest w/o involving our military.

We are already doing a lot of pushing (economically), which is fine.

[Riva]

You seem to dispute that President Trump properly eliminated the Iranian nuclear threat since you question "involving ourselves militarily" apparently in favor of, what, the Obama policy of favoring a nuclear Iran? Your only objection being that Obama's effort wasn't ratified by the Senate.

But as for President Trump, he is doing what he does best, keeping our enemies off balance diplomatically. Or maybe you would prefer muted statements emphasizing non‑interference and saying it was up to Iranians to choose their leaders like the One's reaction that helped end the 2009 Green movement before it really got started?

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m thinking of how much better the world would be today if Jimmy Carter had told France that he would shoot down a certain Air France airplane if it actually went to Iran, and then done it. And maybe then nuked Mecca.

The Soviets have their own problems with radical Islam, perhaps our CIA wasn’t competent enough to realize that, but they did, and they actually would’ve appreciated us putting an end to that foolishness.

What’s not being said about the congressional power to declare war is that you have a war even without Congress‘s permission if another country declare it on you. Iran did that in 1979, taking an embassy which is sovereign US soil and holding our diplomats hostage for 444 days was a declaration of war. I haven’t seen any peace treating negotiated, have you?

QED, we are at war with the Iran and killing the leaders of an enemy country is what you do in a war.

[Nelson]

“ The Donald threatening Iran's leadership with death if they violently quell dissent inside Iran”

I haven’t seen anything mentioning assassination. He’s made vague allusions (his favorite thing) to having the protesters’ backs and military intervention, but I don’t think even Trump is insane enough to threaten to assassinate the leaders of a sovereign nation.

Or at least I’m am praying with all my heart he isn’t that far gone.

[ducksalad]

I don’t think even Trump is insane enough to threaten to assassinate the leaders of a sovereign nation.

He lets senators make the explicit threat for him:

"“To the Ayatollahs: you need to understand—if you keep killing your people who are demanding a better life—Donald J. Trump is going to kill you,” [Senator Lindsey] Graham said in an interview with Fox News on Tuesday."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/graham-warns-iranian-ayatollah-trump-gonna-kill-you-internal-crackdown-continues

But leaving that aside, he's obviously willing to abduct foreign leaders, and that inherently comes with a high risk that the foreign leader will end up dead. If Maduro had pulled a gun from under his pillow or his bodyguards got into a gunfight in the bedroom that would have been a likely result.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The United States government has compiled a weekly kill list every Tuesday since 2001. Bush, Obama. Trump, Biden, and now Trump again have all done this

Maybe this is a good thing, maybe it’s a bad thing, but we’ve been doing it every Tuesday morning for a quarter century. So we add a few more names to the existing weekly list, I see that as a distinction without a difference.

[Kazinski]

Can you send requests?

Asking for a friend.

[Kazinski]

Yesterday I posted about the Atlanta Fed 4th quarter GDP forecast, which was a blowout number. One of the factors the forecast cited was net imports which is exports - imports.

Now the WSJ is reporting that the October trade deficit is the lowest number for any month since 2009.

October of course is the first month of the 4th quarter so this partially explains the GDPNow number.*

"The U.S. trade deficit shrank dramatically in October to its lowest level since 2009, the Commerce Department said Thursday, an unexpected twist in a year of volatile trade flows that have been buffeted by the Trump administration’s steep tariffs.

American imports fell to $331.4 billion in October, while exports increased to $302 billion. That yielded an October deficit of $29.4 billion, an imbalance nearly 40% smaller than September’s."

https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/u-s-trade-deficit-shrank-to-multidecade-low-in-october-9e9a2ab2

To contrast the October number with the previous month:
Total Deficit: $52.8 billion (down from $59.3 billion in August, and 33.6B higher than October).
Exports: $289.3 billion (up 3.0%, up 20.7 billion in October).
Imports: $342.1 billion (up 0.6%, and down another 10.7b in October ).

Did DC stop eating Russian and Iranian Caviar, and Cuban cigars during the shutdown?

* The GDPnow number is pretty volitile, it dropped from 5.4% to 5.1% Friday based on lower residential.real estate construction, but that itself can be volatile and sensitive to the weather.

[Armchair]

Imports from China are sharply dropping.

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IMPCH

[MarkJawz]

It's easy to have blowout numbers when the federal government is running $2.3 trillion deficits (in peacetime, in a supposedly "great" economy), and when there is a huge craze to build worthless AI crap.

The problem is that none of it is sustainable.

[Kazinski]

For once its not worse than you think:

The Congressional Budget Office projected a $1.7 trillion deficit for FY26,

The federal government ran a deficit of $1.8 trillion in fiscal year 2025, $41 billion (-2%) less than in fiscal year 2024.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker

So you are over estimating by over a 1/3. Plus this figures are not adjusted for inflation, or as a % of GDP. Inflation is at 3%, real GDP is growing at over 3%, so in terms the size of the economy in real terms the deficit is going down by about 7% a year.

Not enough but its progress.

[Josh R]

As I noted in yesterday's Open Thread, the increase to 5.4% was driven by a reduction in imports, not an increase in exports (see Table 4). I am not sure what data led to the these numbers, but it couldn't be the numbers you quoted.

[Kazinski]

The jobs report came out, and while.the new jobs number was very weak the Unemployment rate fell .1 percent:

"The US economy added just 50,000 jobs in December, according to the latest monthly report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The unemployment rate ticked down to 4.4% from a revised 4.5%.

The latest data means 2025 saw the weakest annual job growth since 2003, with just 584,000 jobs added last year.

While the Federal Reserve cut rates three times last year in order to support a flailing labor market, December’s improved unemployment rate makes an interest rate cut unlikely at the central bank’s rate-setting meeting later this month."

Unemployment was 4.0% January 2025, so that is a mild up tick. But 4.4% unemployment is not even remotely a high rate.

So how can you explain the weakest job creation numbers since 2003 (2003 unemployment rate 5.8% which is the long term average, but it peaked mid year at 6.4%), but a very modest rise in unemployment?

Might have something to do with there are about 900k fewer foreign born workers than there were at the beginning of 2025 (that includes citizens, green card holders, and undocumented).

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU01073395

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...Long-term unemployed is increasing (U5, U6) YOY. That isn't a trend you want to see in an optimal job market. It bears watching.

[Frank Drackman]

I guess there ARE jobs Amuricans won't do.

[Commenter_XY]

Part of the answer is a huge swath of middle mgmt being replaced by AI. In the not so distant future, we'll need to deal with large scale job displacement.

[Frank Drackman]

They're so good with the AI, the women cleaning my Hotel rooms look so real.

[bernard11]

Maybe a tiny swath.

[Armchair]

Americans will do any job, if the wage is high enough.

There are just jobs Americans won't do at a given wage. They won't go around and cut your lawn for $5.

[Malika la Maize]

Health care and hospitality were among the few industries adding jobs in December. Health care employment is generally immune from ups and downs in the business cycle.

Manufacturing continues to lose workers, cutting 8,000 jobs in December. Factories have been in a slump for the last 10 months, according to an index of manufacturing activity compiled by the Institute for Supply Management. The sector has been hit hard by President Trump's tariffs, since many domestic manufacturers rely on some foreign components.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/09/nx-s1-5670392/jobs-employment-labor-market-economy-tariffs

[MarkJawz]

"While the Federal Reserve cut rates three times last year in order to support Wall Street banksters"

FTFY

[Kazinski]

High interest rates are part of what is causing the affordability crisis in housing.

The other major factor is over regulation. In land use and permitting.

[MarkJawz]

No, high prices are causing issues. High interest rates are not, not unless you think the prices that went up by 100% in 3 years should be the baseline.

[Kazinski]

It looks like you missed the other part of my causation theory.

interest rates are transient, its only since late 2023 they have negatively affected affordability.

But that added to the long term restrictions on land use, obstruction of permitting , special levies, and restrictive zoning, that extra burden has a huge impact on the market.

Interest on a mortgage can be 75%-80% of a mortgage payment, its ridiculous to think at least doubling interest rates from 2022-2024 would not affect affordability.

And a good part of the reason home prices went up so much was the reluctance of existing homeowners to sell and have to finance a new home at an interest rate double what their current rate.

[bernard11]

how can you explain the weakest job creation numbers since 2003 (2003 unemployment rate 5.8% which is the long term average, but it peaked mid year at 6.4%), but a very modest rise in unemployment?

Discouraged workers - those not seeking jobs - don't count as unemployed.

And don't overlook this.

In addition, revisions brought totals down for the prior months. The November total saw a slight downward revision of 8,000 to the payrolls number, while October’s loss was even more than originally reported, now at 173,000 compared with the prior estimate of 105,000.

There is also this:

A more encompassing measure that includes discouraged workers and those holding part-time jobs for economic reasons dropped to 8.4%, down 0.3 percentage point from November.

It's not clear to me what that measure is.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There are six unemployment rates, U-1 through U-6.

The first is only those currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The latter is everyone, including those who are too discouraged to be looking for work. The four in between are starting with those whose unemployment benefits have run out those who are working part-time, but wanna work full-time and a few more things.

[bernard11]

Yes, Ed, I know that.

My second point was simply that the report should have made clear what the "more encompassing measure" cited was, and provided a definition.

[Kazinski]

The current numbers show those revisions.

Yes, there are several measures of unemployment, and if you want to compare those measures to what they were January 2025 or 2003, then that would be a good exercise, but by themselves they don't provide any context of what the trend is.

[bernard11]

The current numbers show those revisions.

You mean the 50,000 figure for Dec. has already been adjusted for the Oct-Nov revisions? I don't think so.

[Kazinski]

December is December

The yearly numbers have been revised:
"The latest data means 2025 saw the weakest annual job growth since 2003, with just 584,000 jobs added last year."

December may also be revised, but it makes no sense to include October and November numbers in December.

[Josh R]

Assuming you are correct and this is due to replacing foreign born workers with native born workers, that's 1) xenophobic, and 2) a recipe for a weaker economy in the long term. The latter is because we would like more people with more jobs in an expanding economy. But in the Trump-Miller Make America White Again world, that's a bad thing.

[Kazinski]

There were several.studies done in Australia that showed while increased immigration raised GDP, it had a neutral to negative effect on per capita GDP.

So what's the benefit?

It might raise government revenues but increase expenditure more, it would increase business revenue, but might lower wages.

[not guilty]

Politico reports:

President Donald Trump on Friday announced that he would put a temporary cap on credit card interest rates with a limit of 10 percent, in line with an idea he floated on the campaign trail.

“Please be informed that we will no longer let the American Public be ‘ripped off’ by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30 percent,” Trump said in a social media post.

He said there would be a one-year cap on credit card rates as of Jan. 20.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/01/09/trump-says-he-will-temporarily-cap-credit-card-rates-00721147

Just how Trump thinks he has the faintest authority to do what he proposes is mystifying.

[Kazinski]

Its nuts anyway. Nobody who makes less than 100k AND a credit score less than 780 will be able to get a credit card, or keep one.

I think Bessent needs to take Trump to the woodshed over this one.

[Krayt]

Congress floated a small CC max rate under Clinton IIRC, and the stock market started tanking and they backed off quickly.

[not guilty]

There is no question that Congress has the authority to regulate credit card transactions under the Commerce Clause. (Whether it is a good idea is a separate question.) The President, however, has no such authority to act unilaterally.

[Kazinski]

No, but the CFPB can make their life miserable, but not miserable enough to conform.

But the reality is a lot less spectacular than what you, and I guess Politico are stating:

"Trump urges credit card companies to slash interest rates to 10% for one year"

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-urges-credit-card-companies-to-slash-interest-rates/

Trump is asking for a one year voluntary reduction, he isn't claiming he has, or trying to use regulatory authority.

Your Politico article.also has this:
"Legislation sponsored by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and cosponsored by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) would impose a 10 percent cap on credit card rates for five years. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House."

WTF Hawley? Is he MTGing?

But it won't pass.

[John F. Carr]

Revoke the credit card industry's exemption from usury laws. Let the card holder's state decide whether a 99% interest rate is a fair exchange for being able to buy groceries the day before payday.

[Kazinski]

That's not a bad idea to let the states decide whether credit card issuers will issue credit cards in their state or not.

But they should know that for every point they decide to lower rates in their state, that is likely about 5-10% of their current population of people who qualify for a credit cards, would no longer qualify.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and that would be a bad thing?

[Dr. Ed 2]

It would definitely be an interesting thing in that, to remain in business, both the auto rental and motel industries would have to abandon their current requirement of having a credit card.

That actually be equitable because right now without a credit card it’s impossible to do either. They could accept debit cards, but I don’t believe they do. Same thing with airline tickets, and as you now have to produce either real ID or passport to get on one, there’s no security interest and not accepting cash.

[wvattorney13]

While it would be a good thing from a personal, family financial perspective, it would destroy the economy. Trump knows that there is no way of it passing so he scores cheap points by advocating for it.

[MarkJawz]

Which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm old enough to remember when credit cards were not credit cards, but charge cards, and were privileges for the upper middle class.

Most people should be using debit cards.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We would, however, have to extend the credit card protections to debit cards. Credit cards have those protections for a reason, because of things that were happening in the 70s, which would immediately start happening again if people instead were to rely on debit cards. Holder and do course rule and $50 limit on unauthorized use come to immediate mind as things that debit cards should also have.

[wvattorney13]

Economically it would be a terrible thing. It would be the most recessionary and deflationary thing I could imagine us doing. Whole industries would collapse and cause a cascading effect throughout the economy.

This economy is not based off of what we did in 1954. It is based on what people do today. Massive amounts of jobs, businesses, and livelihoods are dependent on people swiping those cards and buying crap they can't afford. If you tell banks that they can't charge more than 10% for risky unsecured credit, then they won't lend it to those people. Welcome back to the stone age.

[MarkJawz]

I think a deflationary collapse is just what we need to have a long-term sustainable future.

[Commenter_XY]

Nobody's perfect. The Donald says dumb shit, too. /smh

[Frank Drackman]

Good news for my Pawn Shop, we only charge 0.8%
Of course that's per day, and if you don't pay, we don't report your welshing to the Credit Bureaus, but to Rocco and Vito.
They have this "Separation Package" they do, it's a total break.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

What I always wondered is why there wasn’t a cottage industry of people willing to deal with Rocco and Vito. Counterforce. balance of terror, that sort of stuff.

On a more serious note, how do you think things like usury laws got passed in the first place?

[Dr. Ed 2]

While the driver was clearly dead at this point, NoGood Nicole’s SUV struck and damaged two parked cars.

Who is liable for the damage to those cars?

[Kazinski]

Likely her insurance, but nobody cares, the poor woman is dead.

[Riva]

She would be alive if she hadn’t used her car as a deadly weapon. Nobody wanted an incident apart from whatever leftist group(s) that helped to instigate this and are actively interfering, sometimes violently, with federal law enforcement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Well, it’s quite apparent that neither she nor her wife ever expected the iceman to actually shoot. They thought they could do anything. They damn well pleased, and get away with it, in part because people in that city have been doing that since the George Floyd overdose.

I think she was just trying to scare the ice man, didn’t intend to actually hit him, and definitely didn’t intend to kill him. But like pointing a toy gun at a cop if the cop thinks it’s a real gun, it sucks to be you. And in this case, it sucked to be her.

My point however, addressed one of the issues that is being raised about self driving cars. For over a century now, American law has held the operator responsible for what the vehicle does. In this case, there was a vehicle without a living operator in it, there was no human being, capable of either avoiding the accident or causing it.

[John F. Carr]

That's an interesting question that probably depends on little details of state law. Was the driver negligent in getting shot? Under what circumstances are the actions of a runaway car attributed to the person who last drove it?

In Massachusetts the insurance companies would talk it out on the phone and the decision would affect whether the owners of the parked cars owed a $500 deductible. Other states are more litigious. One reason to buy insurance is to have a team of people to stand up to the other guy's lawyers.

[Riva]

Negligent? Using a car as a deadly weapon against a federal law enforcement officer is a bit more than negligent. It's an f'ing crime.

[David Nieporent]

The only deadly weapon that was used against someone was the ICE thug's gun. Her car didn't even knock anyone down, let alone act as a deadly weapon.

[ThePublius]

She did hit the officer. Check the cell phone video.

A car driven that way is a deadly weapon, or at least a dangerous. instrument.

[Life of Brian]

We've showed him specifics on this at least a dozen times now, and he always just runs away from that thread and then pops up elsewhere saying the same nonsense. Waste of time, I'm afraid.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It doesn’t even matter if she hit him or not, the important question is if a reasonable person would believe that she was going to.

And it gets better — He also has the right to use deadly force to defend the lives of his fellow icemen. Actually a random bystanders as well, but the question I would ask is if he reasonably thought there might be an ice man behind her or diagonally behind her in a place where he could be hit if she backed at an angle, which she initially did.

I’m over 6 feet tall and could not tell you with certainty that there wasn’t somebody on the right rear of a vehicle that tall. He may well have lost situational awareness, long enough to forget where all of his fellow officers were, he may have hyper focused on her enough, not to be able to tell if there was anyone behind a vehicle or not.

I’m not defending him, I’m merely repeating the stuff that I was taught when I was driving a school bus, with a wee bit of Ed psych thrown in. It’s called tunnel vision and it’s real.

Again, I’d like to know what the EDR recorded because that’s gonna be objective factual information about the vehicle was doing, right on down if to if the wheels were slipping on the snow. Even if the time tags on the video aren’t reliable, the EDR will have an accurate recording of exactly how long it was from when she shifted into drive until the airbag deployed at the point of impact with the pole. There might be a little bit quibbling about at what point in the impact, the bag deployed, if hitting the parked cars did it or if hitting the pole did it, but that is a small fraction of a second. The bag did deploy and hence there’s a solid record of what happened with that car before that. It’s why EDR’s exist.

[David Nieporent]

I have checked the cell phone video. It does not show what you claim. But even if he was barely grazed by the car, it does not change the fact that her car did not even knock him down, let alone injure him.

[TwelveInchPianist]

A car being used to ram someone isn't a deadly weapon unless it injures them or knocks them down?

[David Nieporent]

Yes. Also, grazing the side of someone is not "ramming" them.

[Josh R]

Unless you are invoking the Sideshow Bob defense, attempting to run over someone with a car (which Goode did not do) makes the car a deadly weapon.

[Riva]

And not the first such occurrence. You should be angry at the leftist agitators that are instigating this violent interference with ICE. They're the ones ultimately responsible, in a moral sense at least.

[David Nieporent]

ICE — well, Trump/Miller/Noem — are the ones instigating these confrontations, and thus are responsible in a moral sense. Not surprisingly, we didn't see these sorts of incidents routinely happening under Biden, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan…

[Joe_dallas]

My recollection is that MN has some variation of both no fault insurance and uninsured motorist insurance. So either the owners policy will cover or good's policy will cover or a combination of the two will cover, net of the deductible, depending on which policy will be deemed to cover the damage.

[Riva]

Not the limit of liability. Civilly liability exists if you damage another vehicle while using your car in the course of committing a crime and her estate could be held responsible.

[Dr. Ed 2]

And if you are married, that would include your wife’s estate.

Hmmmmm…..

[TwelveInchPianist]

" Was the driver negligent in getting shot?"

Regardless of her getting shot, she was evading an arrest, which is a crime. Is that usually covered? I don't know.

[John F. Carr]

It's not crime but intent that usually voids coverage.

If I drive drunk, a criminal act, and crash into somebody my insurance pays. If I intentionally hit somebody my insurance will be less generous. A Massachusetts insurance policy would pay out the mandatory minimum coverage to whoever I hit. The mandatory minimum is enough to fix the average car and pay for a few days in the hospital.

[wvattorney13]

That's not right. You look at intent in terms of the accident. She obviously didn't intend to crash into the car that was hit (after she was shot and dead).

That's the vantage point. Even if we assume that she intended to commit a crime and/or hit the ICE agent, it doesn't suggest she intended the accident.

[Frank Drackman]

More importantly, who's taking care of the Dog?

[Dr. Ed 2]

The most recent video clearly records NoGood Nicole’s wife, telling her to attempt to run over the ice man, a crime which resulted in Nicole‘s death.

Can the wife be charged with felony murder?

[not guilty]

Uh, no. Minnesota's first degree murder statute, which includes felony murder, is here: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.185

The wife was not committing a felony specified in the statute, and in any event, the acts of the decedent and the cop were an intervening cause of death, so there is no proximate cause attributable to the wife.

[Commenter_XY]

So the wife can escalate the incident, which video clearly shows her doing, and walk away scot-free. Is that really the case?

[not guilty]

Have you read the statute that I linked, XY? Dr. Ed 2 asked whether the wife can be charged with felony murder. The answer there is no, because she was not in the perpetration of any felony specified in the statute, and because there was not proximate causation beyond a reasonable doubt attributable to her for the death.

I don't know whether there is any other Minnesota statute prohibiting her conduct.

[Commenter_XY]

Yes = I understood your felony murder response

[Davedave]

"walk away scot-free"

Well, she certainly shouldn't try to drive away, or she'll be murdered.

[Krayt]

You know why they're hammering this in this way, don't you? Because of all the Ashley Babbit good kill good job in-your-facity.

Just observing.

[John F. Carr]

My understanding is, the felony murder rule in federal law is codified in 18 USC 1111 and only applies to deaths during commission of "arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery". The prosecutor would have to hold surviving wife liable for attempted murder to charge under this section. The sentence for that would be decades because attempted murder for political reasons is a crime of terrorism. Upgrading from 30 years to life is not worth a lot of effort.

I don't know if federal law would apply the felony murder rule in this situation where the defendant did not cause the death. California used to charge criminals with murder of accomplices but that was not the general rule.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I was thinking the “escape” part as, arguably, she was attempting to escape from federal custody and her wife encouraged her to do so.

ICE had probable cause to arrest her for interfering with federal enforcement, or something, they were ordering her out of the vehicle to facilitate the arrest, and hence I would argue that her fleeing was an attempt to escape. Personally, I think she was trying to scare the iceman and neither she or her wife realized they actually might shoot.

[Josh R]

The most recent video clearly records NoGood Nicole’s wife, telling her to attempt to run over the ice man.

she was attempting to escape from federal custody and her wife encouraged her to do so

Yes, the wife told her to Drive Baby, Drive to flee (legal or not), not to hit the officer.

[John F. Carr]

Could you prove that the defendant knew that she or the driver had been arrested? I don't know when an arrest is complete under federal law. Under the state laws I've seen there is a distinction between resisting arrest and escaping once the arrest is complete.

[not guilty]

"I was thinking the 'escape' part as, arguably, she was attempting to escape from federal custody and her wife encouraged her to do so."

Do you claim that the decedent's wife -- as to whom you asked about a felony murder charge -- was in custody?

If so, were you drunk when you wrote your comment regarding "escape"?

[wvattorney13]

The law of principals. If she is present and materially assisting, she is as guilty as if she committed the crime herself.

I agree that for other reasons the felony murder statute does not apply, but this isn't it.

[not guilty]

John F. Carr is correct that the felony murder rule in federal law is codified in the definition set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 1111(a) and applies to deaths during commission of specified felonies. It includes killing in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate "arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery". It additionally applies to a killing "perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed."

Here, however, § 1111(b) limits application to murder occurring within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Per 18 U.S.C. § 7, that “special maritime and territorial jurisdiction” does not include a public street in Minneapolis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I think the solution to a lot of problems is for all ice vehicles to have an electrical charge of 50,000 volts to crowd. While there are all kinds of issues that would make this difficult everything ranging from not wanting to electrocute the ice guys themselves to messing up their radios, if the issues could be dealt with, I think this would be the solution.

Don’t want to be electrocuted, don’t touch ice vehicles.

[John F. Carr]

South African delivery company inDrive is considering electrified trucks because of the danger of robbers.

Relevant movie clip: Burglar protected.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s increasingly looking like tampon. Tim will become a guest of the federal government.

[not guilty]

How so? Please show your work.

[Frank Drackman]

You're the idiot reporter asking Nick Saban his game plan.

[Kazinski]

Argentina has fully repaid the US and redeemed all of their pesos tendered in the currency swap they did October:

MILEI FULLY REPAYS CURRENCY SWAP TO THE U.S.

In a major economic achievement for President Milei, Argentina has fully and rapidly repaid the US$ 2.5 billion drawdown from a US$ 20 billion currency swap facility with the United States Treasury.

Announced by U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the repayment — completed in December 2025 — clears all outstanding pesos from the Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF).

The swap, established in October 2025, provided urgent liquidity to stabilize Argentina's exchange rate and financial markets right before Argentina's midterm elections—which Milei later won by a landslide."

https://x.com/ArgMilei/status/2009646918125703240

[darkknight9]

Hatsu Basho starts tonight!!! Woo hoo!

[Kazinski]

NFL Playoffs start in 11 and a half hours.

I should get some sleep.

[Frank Drackman]

4+ months to pick the top 14 teams? The NFL's become the NBA, with marginally more white players(HT Place Kickers/Punters)

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The NBA MVP for three of the five past seasons was a white guy.

[Frank Drackman]

Yes, the same White Guy, thanks for making my point.
Not an NBA Fan (can you blame me? Atlanta doesn't have a team) but is
"Shai Gilgeous-Alexander"
an actual person? Sounds like one of those made up Farrelly Brothers comedy characters.

Frank

[Trollificus]

Fictional NBA players? You must be thinking of Kentavious Caldwell-Pope, who was made up by EA to fill out the league rosters of NBA2k 2019. People thought he was real for years.

[Kazinski]

After offering more than one second by second, and some more detailed frame by frame analysis of the "Good" Shooting (excellent naming coincidence), I invited several other commenters who expressed vague contrary opinions to provide their own detailed analysis, specifically Officer Ross's position and relation to the Honda Pilot between seconds 40 and 42 of the Ross Alpha News video.

Nobody took me up on it, I guess I got the last word.

Just to recap my main conclusions were: Nicole Good hit her gas pedal right about second 41 of the Ross video and was past officer Ross and dead by second 42.

And during that one second her Honda Pilot traveled.about 9 feet from a dead stop which would indicate an acceleration equivalent to 0-60mph in under 6 seconds (.56 gs), which is approximately the maximum acceleration for a Honda Pilot.

[Commenter_XY]

An AWFL FAFO. Her 6-year old child is now an orphan as a result. That is the tragedy. Try telling that child Mommy isn't coming home, ever again. And they are alone. The people who sponsored and trained Good as an 'Ice Warrior' will walk away scot-free. Good's partner, who knowingly escalated the severity of the already dangerous situation, faces no accountability for her behavior. MSM reporters sound like civic arsonists in their coverage.

It is a stupendously bad life choice to knowingly impede or threaten an LEO performing their job duties. I really hope others are dissuaded from acting similarly (and getting the same result).

[Michael P]

Have you flown to Minnesota to try to console the kid? If not, then according to one of the regular commenters here, you must not really care.

The fact that the other woman got out of the car belies the idea that Good was trying to escape (and abandon her partner in crime). Their taunting of the officers also belies claims that they were afraid for their lives or unaware of who the officers were. They made a strong of bad choices, intentionally escalating the encounter, culminating in Good trying to run down a federal agent with her SUV.

[Commenter_XY]

Is there a GoFundMe site for the orphan? That is something I would want to contribute to, anonymously. I would encourage others to do the same. There is merit (in heaven) to helping the orphan.

Psalms 27:10...Though my Mother and my Father leave me, Adonai will care for me.

[hobie]

"Is there a GoFundMe site for the orphan?"

Unless she called someone the N-word, I doubt it.

[Mr. Bumble]

...of course there is.

Mr. Bumble 12 hours ago

...and as day follows night:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15449503/ice-shooting-minneapolis-renee-nicole-good-gofundme.html

[Frank Drackman]

I think the poor Dog will find a good home.

[bernard11]

The fact that the other woman got out of the car belies the idea that Good was trying to escape (and abandon her partner in crime).

What crime was the other woman supposedly committing?

They made a strong of bad choices, intentionally escalating the encounter,

True, if "they" refers to ICE. Look, when you swarm cities repeatedly with thousands of ICE agents, people are going to be killed. Any damn fool knows that. Some don't care.

[Michael P]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/372

bernard11 doesn't even try to be serious. Except as a keyboard warrior in favor of violent revolution against the United States. At keast he realizes his judgment is no better than that of a damn fool.

[not guilty]

Michael P, do you have receipts on your bizarre claim that bernard11 has written "in favor of violent revolution against the United States"?

[bernard11]

Of course he doesn't.

Michael P. is one of the stupidest commenters here. He just raves about whatever comes into his so-called mind, without regard for facts, logic, or anything to do with reality.

[MarkJawz]

The 6-year old child is better off in foster care than being raised by that nasty bull dyke moonbat.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Maybe the child will be better off with sane, foster parents.

[Trollificus]

You think the prospect of death is enough to cause our comrades to forfeit their free speech rights?? HA! Per operation "Need More Martyrs", we will fight to the last liberal upper-class white woman!
~Antifa

[hobie]

It's been pointed out that about 11 seconds before firing, Agent Ross switched his phone to his left hand. Getting ready for some action.

[Frank Drackman]

You do the same thing every day

[Kazinski]

If he was getting ready to shoot someone he wouldn't be distracting himself by filming at all.

I think all of the ICE agents approaching a road block set up.to impede them are aware it may also be a setup for an ambush.

[Joe_dallas]

Kaz -
Definitely an act by the two to specifically impede federal law enforcement

By any chance do you recall who it was that that was no proof that they even knew it was ICE, for the reason the deceased person didnt leave any record that would indicate they knew it was ICE? I seem to recall a post from one of the leftists who claims not to be a leftist is spite of repetitively posting leftist talking points.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"If he was getting ready to shoot someone he wouldn't be distracting himself by filming at all."

Especially if he was planning a murder.

[David Nieporent]

If he was getting ready to shoot someone he wouldn't be distracting himself by filming at all.

If he was worried about being run over he wouldn't be distracting himself by filming at all.

[Joe_dallas]

Lets ignore all the events that happened before any shots were fired. Context free and content free analysis from DN.

A - the filming began long before the shooting and long before she engage the transmission to drive the vehicle.

B - He drew the firearm when the vehicle was being driven straight at him. Why to continue to state otherwise when it clear from the same videos that every one now has access to?

never mind on that last question -

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — I do not think timing data shown on the videos has much to do with real time. For instance, on one video I checked, the interval between the moment the car started to reverse, and when the first shot was fired, was shown as 3 seconds. In another video, likely edited from the same original—an original which apparently featured more frames per second, and greater detail in the images than that first online presentation—the same sequence lasted 6 seconds, as shown by its different video timer.

Thus, if you have been relying on timers shown to mark video frames, to instead estimate speeds and distances as real-world occurrences, you may be off by multiples. The logical conclusion is that what you see in the video timing data is simply the amount of time any particular video runs to get to any particular event shown, with no reliable relationship between that time and the timing of real occurrences as they happened.

Among files made from the same originals, but optimized by different editors for different objectives, you should expect to encounter notably different run times. Obviously, such differing run times cannot all be accurate indicators of real-world time intervals encountered during the events shown. It may be that none of them is accurate.

Why the variability? I am not an expert on video editing. I am expert on related questions encountered in still photography. Main topics include color correction, the bit depth used to define the available optical densities and color spectrum, contrast, resolution, and data compression. Deeper questions relate to complex digital algorithms used to interpolate edited results among pixels.

Those factors are likewise influential for videos. They are consequential factors for video editors to consider and manipulate while preparing a computer file for a particular purpose—a task which tends, by the way, to impose a lowest-common denominator requirement on images or videos intended to be published for use by widely varying hardware platforms, such as the internet videos you have been relying upon. To avoid risk of failures on commonplace low-capacity platforms, such as cell phones and inexpensive computers with low-fidelity displays, video editors have the option to edit out a great deal of information, and to alter frame rates, both of which can affect run times.

In the case of still photography, expected effects are realized in time intervals necessary to accomplish tasks related to opening, editing, displaying, transmitting, and storing one frame. That makes real-time accuracy irrelevant for that kind of use. Each such task imposes a characteristic effect on the size of the still image file, the storage capacity needed to save the file's digital data, the time needed to open, close, and edit the file, and even on the power needed in the computer systems which prepare and store the file, and in other computer systems which make different characteristic uses of the file. But that is all.

To that list of still-image file size factors a digital video file adds the imposing data-multiplication factor of frame-rate-per second. Note that using lower frame-rates per second eases all the data-related requirements, while increasing the versatility of the file to run on varying and lesser-capacity platforms, which of course are the most numerous. Conversely, increasing frame-rates per second narrows versatility, for the sake of increasing per-frame visual accuracy. That virtue too may come at the expense of distorted time presentations.

As most people understand, when you decrease frame-rates per second, the resulting action appears to run faster in real time. Conversely, an artificially high frame-rate per second delivers the appearance of slow motion, with an added advantage to show more-detailed intermediate data frame-by-frame, if the original file happened to use enough frames-per-second to record such data.

Thus, data handling requirements can vary by orders of magnitude, even among still images which superficial inspection would show little to distinguish. That means deliberate decisions typically must be made when processing more imposing video files, with an eye always to optimize the file for a particular kind of use.

Many such uses may present. Thus, the amount of time it takes to view a file optimized for a quick-opening, inexpensive storage, quick-transmission use, on low-capacity digital hardware, becomes an enduring characteristic of the edited file. Likewise, but in reverse, for a file optimized to show maximal detail using more capable hardware.

Thus, you should not assume, or rely upon a notion, that the times you see presented when you watch video files have much to do with real-time occurrences and their characteristic speeds and durations.

More generally—and I think of great importance for these discussions—each of the users commenting here relies on a particular hardware platform with its own advantages and limitations. That means we do not share one view in common, and should not assume we do.

In particular, the display capacity of screens is highly variable. If you are using a device with a screen made or utilized by any manufacturer with a name most people would recognize, no matter how much you paid for it, you are probably not getting an optimal view of what you are looking at, and certainly not a view to match what most others variably see.

Display systems which do a better job, and jobs optimized for best-available performance in specialist applications do exist. They are typically made by specialist vendors catering to high-end graphics applications, medical imaging, and defense-related applications. Of course such displays tend to cost multiples of what most folks spend on their entire computer systems. If you are lucky enough to get a look at such a display, you may find yourself surprised to discover how much a recent cell phone video can record.

[Kazinski]

While it is is true that Android and IOS phones, can vary slightly if frame rate, they are generally accurate, when unaltered, within a few milliseconds.

Once they have been edited depending on what the editor intends, then of course all bets are off.

It is somewhat amusing that when the NYTimes is syncing videos to make a point that the videos don't actually make, its considered gospel. But I am sure there are people hard at work now, both inside and outside government who are busy syncing the videos frame by frame including using cues such as the relative position of the cars and the people to come up with the definitive analysis.

I'm pretty confident my own analysis will hold up well.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Your analysis didn’t make sense. The video shows Good’s vehicle backing up, and then moving forward; I think the transition occurs at the 40.33 mark but I could be a couple of frames off. The vehicle goes out of frame at 41.30. (The last frame where the vehicle is visible is 41.27.)

The video then shows a bunch of sky and the officer’s face. 42.47 is the first frame where the camera is close to horizontal, but it is pointing towards the opposite side of the street from where Good’s vehicle was. The camera pans to the right, and we catch a glimpse of the vehicle’s tires in the five frames starting at 44.10. The vehicle comes back into view between 44.57 and 45.67, which is the last time we see the vehicle.

Your analysis seems to be based on the idea that the camera was facing in the opposite direction than the direction it was actually facing at the 42.47 mark. If it were, then you could argue that it didn’t show a vehicle, and therefore Good’s vehicle must have moved past the officer. But the video is not ambiguous on this point. The camera pans to the right, not to the left, to bring the rear of the vehicle into view.

In light of Stephen Lathrop’s response, I should note that the video I am discussing has an “Alpha News” logo; it is clearly not an unaltered copy of the video recorded by the officer.

[Dr. Ed 2]

More significant is what the EDR recorded because there is both accelerator position and throttle position, with a computer usually delaying the latter for greater fuel efficiency.

This was an issue with Crash Murray’s wreck, he had accelerator at 99% when he went into the ledge, although the computer had not yet given him 99% of throttle. Honda is different, but the question I have is if you floor it from a dead stop, what is the immediate throttle position as 0 to 60 involves an average. I don’t think a computer would immediately give you 100%, but that’s just a guess.

[Frank Drackman]

Anyone know what model pistol ICE uses??

[ThePublius]

I'd bet dollars to donuts it's a Glock.

[Mr. Bumble]

When donuts cost a dollar (or more) each, that term has lost its meaning.

[ThePublius]

Yea, I know, I was thinking that as I typed it. How much does a donut (doughnut) cost now? I recon it's north of a buck at this point.

I remember my father in law telling me about how hot dogs from the street carts in NYC were a nickel. That was in the early 1930's I think.

Inflation is weird to me. It is apparently inexorably increasing, rendering the least denominations of currency worthless. Why? You would think with all of these economic geniuses around that they would figure out a way to maintain the value of a penny, nickel, dime, and so on. I remember when I first went to Italy in 1995 the public phones didn't accept coins, you had to purchase a card at a shop or bank. I then realize that it would take a wheel barrow full of lira to make a call. (This was before they adopted the Euro.)

[Frank Drackman]

Wow, we just missed each other, I was there 96-97, still remember it was about 1,700 Lira/1$, You'd walk around with a few 50,000 Lira notes and feel really rich.
Of course that means the 1,000 Lira notes were worth about 60 cents, we'd tip the A-hole Waiters with them.

Frank

[Michael P]

In further economic news: "Stock market today: Dow, S&P 500 jump to records, Nasdaq surges as stocks end 2026's first week with big gains"

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/live/stock-market-today-dow-sp-500-jump-to-records-nasdaq-surges-as-stocks-end-2026s-first-week-with-big-gains-210029649.html

[MarkJawz]

More evidence that the stock market is not an indicator of the American economy, but how well the rich feel like they're doing.

As an old man who has seen many credit cycles, it's also frightening to me that nobody today cares about valuations, the balance sheets and income statements of the underlying companies or anything else.

It's all "A rising stock market is good because it's rising."

[SRG2]

As stock markets go up in the long term, there will be record highs set under every president.

[MarkJawz]

You're assuming that a prolonged bear market is no longer possible, because Uncle Jerome will bail everyone out.

It took Japan over 30 years to reach the 1989 peak. It's scary to me that Americans don't believe that that is possible in the United States, or really, that anything other than a shallow dip is possible.

[SRG2]

I am assuming it's wrong to credit Trump with an achievement that has really nothing to do with him.

Japan is a unique case - it took two generations to recover from a lethal undercapitalisation of its banking system, overleveraged companies and insane property prices.. Fun fact: the first BIS capital accord was intended to prevent Japanese banks taking advantage of weak capital standards to beat Western banks when competing to lend.

[MarkJawz]

I'm not crediting Trump, nor do I credit Biden or Obama.

[DaveM]

Nothing good can come from speculating about the ICE shooting in Minneapolis. We need to let the investigation be done and all the evidence gathered or we're just blowing in the wind.

However, IN THE MEANTIME, we can say two things right now: first, that ICE agents need to not draw their weapons unless they are facing an intentionally violent attack; and, secondly, that citizens need to stop harassing ICE agents.

To stop the latter, I would definitely be in favor of some form of its-your-own-damn-fault federal law, where if someone intentionally obstructs a public right-of-way and gets hurt, they cannot sue for damages.

To stop the former, better training and immediate removal of any officer who discharges a firearm until cleared by investigation (hopefully, this is already the rule.)

[Frank Drackman]

Only thing I saw in the Agents hand was his phone, until Karen stepped on the gas.

[Michael P]

The officer in this case did not draw his weapon until he was intentionally, violently attacked -- the driver saw he was in front of her car just before she quickly accelerated towards him. What more do you want? Process as the punishment?

[hobie]

So you don't like process as punishment, eh?

[Malika la Maize]

For those concerned about the potential of government agents’ abuse of the power we reluctantly grant them there are few situations more serious than an LEO’s use of deadly force. It should trigger an extensive process, something more than inter-net randos analysis or facile “there’s a video that speaks for itself” by Joe Q Public, to make sure the use of force was proper. Professionals in the relevant fields should work to come to a determination (note the Rodney King trial where everyone “knew what they saw” but defense experts slowing down the entire video and referencing use of force techniques told a very different story). Now, a proper deference to the difficult in the moment nature of LEO work should be part of that investigation and it should not take a punitive attitude. But it should always be done.

[SRG2]

The officer in this case did not draw his weapon until he was intentionally, violently attacked

A lie, as one can tell from the time it took between his being hit and his firing his gun.

[ThePublius]

How long does it take to unholster a gun?

And what does it matter? So what if he had the gun in his hand already when she stepped on the gas?

[Michael P]

How long does it take to unholster a gun?

SRG2 doesn't know, doesn't care, doesn't have any rebuttal to the NYT video that Brett keeps pointing to.

The attack started when she revved her engine, wheels spinning for traction -- not when there was actual contact. By SRG2 logic, there was nothing wrong with the shooting until a bullet actually hit a person. (By actual sane-person logic, the only thing wrong with the shooting was what Good and her passenger did.)

[SRG2]

As she was looking at the police by her door when she started driving away, there was no attack.

And the reason the unholstering matters is that he had no reason to have his gun out in the first place. That he fired so quickly shows he already has his gun out.

Actually, if he did have his gun out, that would justify Good driving at him in fear for her life.

[Michael P]

Your understanding of the law is just as awful as the rest of your logic.

Even taking your storyline as fact, a law enforcement officer unholstering a weapon does not justify running them down with a vehicle.

[SRG2]

a law enforcement officer unholstering a weapon does not justify running them down with a vehicle.

Your understanding of the law is just as awful as the rest of your logic. It depends on the context. If you've not been pulled over by a LEO, and you believe you've done nothing wrong, and you're about to comply and suddenly a LEO draws his gun, it's not unreasonable to be in fear of your life - and if so, you are absolutely entitled to run him over in self-defence. It's up to a jury to decide whether this was self-defence according to the usual principles, not some fascist sheep-shagger.

[Michael P]

Good might have believed with all her twisted heart that she had done nothing wrong -- but the legal standard is what a reasonable person would believe, and a reasonable person would have made about five decisions differently even before she tried to run down a law enforcement officer with her vehicle. That reasonable person would not have been in the same position that she got herself into (because that reasonable person would understand that Good was being arrested for committing at least one felony).

She was also clearly not "about to comply" with anything. She and her passenger were continuing to taunt and mock the officers, and she made no moves suggesting she was about to exit the vehicle.

Don't be such a dishonest shit about this.

[Absaroka]

"If you've not been pulled over by a LEO, and you believe you've done nothing wrong, and you're about to comply and suddenly a LEO draws his gun, it's not unreasonable to be in fear of your life - and if so, you are absolutely entitled to run him over in self-defence."

I think that is likely really bad advice. For example, there you are at trial and the officer, if he survives, or some other officer if he didn't, is going to get asked 'So why did Officer Jones unholster his gun when he stopped the green 2014 Honda Civic being driven by a 40 something man with curly brown hair, glasses, and a red shirt?'. And the officer is going to reply 'because we had a report of an armed and dangerous kidnapper/bank robber/serial rapist in a green 2014 Honda Civic being driven by a 40 something man with curly brown hair, glasses and a red shirt. We didn't have a license plate, just the car/driver description, and this car and driver exactly matched that description And our policies in that situation allow us to do felony stops with a drawn weapon'.

I have sympathy for people who might reasonably not realize the person they are dealing with is an actual LEO - maybe he's just some scruffy undercover guy with a badge that might or might not be real or something. But when you know you are dealing with actual LEOs, the place for disputes is a courtroom, not the street.

[SRG2]

I specified, "when you've not been pulled over" . Evidently you didn'r see that bit.

[Life of Brian]

I specified, "when you've not been pulled over" .

How do you see that as changing the calculus? Pulling someone over is just an order to bring the vehicle to a stop, after which the LEO will issue additional orders just as they would to someone who wasn't driving in the first place.

[Absaroka]

""when you've not been pulled over"

I'm not sure where 'you're about to comply' comes in then? But in any event, I don't think it matters.

You are setting on the park bench minding your business, A cop walking by suddenly draws his gun. You think you are in danger, pull out your gun and shoot him. I still think you spend decades in prison.

I have heard of cases over the years where someone plausibly argued they didn't know the person breaking down their door was a cop. Occasionally to rarely that succeeds; more often it doesn't. I can't recall a single case of 'yes, he was clearly a cop, but his actions made me fear for my life so I ran over/shot him'. Are you aware of any claims like that that succeeded?

[Brett Bellmore]

I have, in the past 30 years or so, heard of a few cases where that worked, but it required two factors:

1. The cop had to indisputably have been acting in a homicidal manner.
2. You had to somehow survive the whole police force being out to make sure you didn't live to see a trial.

[Dr. Ed 2]

There’s a case in the state of Maine in the 80s where a defendant successfully argued self-defense and fatally shooting a cop. I forget the details, but it was something like the cop threatening to shoot him if he did tell them where another injured officer was.

This should be somewhere near Lewiston. I think it was Lewiston and somewhere with access to Lexus probably can find it.

[not guilty]

At common law there was a privilege to use reasonable force to resist an unlawful arrest. Most jurisdictions have modified that rule by statute.

Minnesota Statutes § 609.06 appears to be the statute applicable here. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.06
This statute specifies that an individual may use reasonable force when they believe it is necessary to resist or prevent an offense against their person. This belief must be both honest and reasonable, meaning the individual genuinely perceived a threat and that a reasonable person in the same situation would have perceived the same threat.

Subdivision 2 of this statute states:

Deadly force used against peace officers. Deadly force may not be used against peace officers who have announced their presence and are performing official duties at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

Statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed. A statute will be construed to alter the common law only when that disposition is clear. A Scalia and B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts § 52, 318-319 (2012). The maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius holds that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. Id., at § 10, 107-111.

Applying these maxims to Minnesota's § 609.06, subdivision 2 would indicate that deadly force may be used against peace officers who have not announced their presence or who are not performing official duties or who are not at a location where a person is committing a crime or an act that would be a crime if committed by an adult.

SCOTUS has opined in John Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U.S. 529, 534 (1900):

At common law, if a party resisted arrest by an officer without warrant and who had no right to arrest him, and if in the course of that resistance the officer was killed, the offense of the party resisting arrest would be reduced from what would have been murder if the officer had had the right to arrest, to manslaughter. What would be murder if the officer had the right to arrest might be reduced to manslaughter by the very fact that he had no such right. So an officer at common law was not authorized to make an arrest without a warrant for a mere misdemeanor not committed in his presence.

Ironically, the name of the deceased tribal police officer there was John Kills Back. He didn't live up to his moniker (just as Earvin's johnson apparently wasn't "Magic" when he contracted HIV).

All of that having been said, resisting a police officer is a monumentally bad idea, no matter what the law provides as to self-defense. The legality or illegality of the arrest can be determined later, and resistance is highly likely to result in a beatdown at best. As the police mindset often goes, "You may beat the rap, but you can't beat the ride:"

[Josh R]

The lie is the claim she intentionally attacked. She was fleeing.

[TwelveInchPianist]

None of us knows her intention. But if she was fleeing, she was fleeing with a cop standing in front of her car.

Fleeing and attacking aren't mutually exclusive.

[Josh R]

It's obvious from the evidence, she had no intent to hit him. But, Trump and company want to paint her as a domestic terrorist. Shame on them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's not even obvious that she didn't hit him.

[Josh R]

It's obvious that she did hit him.

[Kazinski]

We know definitively from the still in the NYTimes video he started drawing his weapon, in the fraction of the second from when she stopped reversing, and started moving forward, directly towards him initially. See the linked photo, front wheels apparently pointed forward, other officer at her window, Officer Ross directly in front of Nicole Good in the drivers seat.

https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000010631041/minneapolis-ice-shooting-video.html

This would be second 41 of officer Ross's video, the same second he fired the shots.

Really SRG, there is no need to call people liars, if I were to guess how long it would take for an officer to append the danger, draw and fire the weapon, I too would guess well more than a second, but the video evidence from two different sources show it was well less than a second.

[David Nieporent]

The officer in this case was never attacked. Do you even listen to how stupid you sound? He was in front of her car; she "quickly accelerated towards him," and yet not a thing happened to him? On what planet is that not insane?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Huh? As you guys have pointed out, he was able to jump out of the way.

[Kazinski]

He was struck a glancing blow by a car that was at a standstill less than a second before he was hit, which he was standing 3-4 feet in front of.

There is several videos documenting that.

And contrary to what TIP said below, in the NYTimes video at the precise frame (about :09-10, since it isn't, showing me which sec when I freeze it) where the driver side rear wheel is crossing the white line he appears to be leaning in, trying to fend off the car with his left forearm I presume, because because he has his gun in his right hand, and we know that's when the first shot went through the front windshield. He did not jump away.

And by the way, that same frame shows that the first bullet would have only have been 18" from the other officers head, A couple.of inches it could have hit the window frame and ricocheted and hit them. I can't really speculate how close the bullet in the side mirror would have been because SUV car would have traveled 2-3 feet before the next bullet.

[Kazinski]

Here is the smoking gun evidence that She drove almost directly straight ahead at the officer until she struck him.
Look at the white line for distance traveled context, look at windows in the distance for direction of travel context.

The back wheel on the white line is when Ross was struck.

Both frames were taken from the NY Times video.

https://x.com/i/status/2010094303155274137

[Josh R]

The second clip shows the front wheel to the right when he is struck. She turned to the right before making contact. Every piece of evidence clearly shows she did.

Are you going with Trump, Miller, Noem, Vance and buying into the "domestic terrorist" 100% BS lie?

[Kazinski]

I'm not saying she wasn't starting to turn the wheels to the right.

But that clear evidence shows the first critical 3 feet, because that's about how far away he was, she was going almost straight forward, if there is any curve at all its just a few degrees.

And that is all Ross had to go on when he was shot.

And one other thing we will never know: Did she start turning the wheel to the right when she saw Ross's gun? I think her intent was always to turn to the right, based on her backing up first with the wheels cranked left, but you can't completely for lose that possibility.

I think she was a misguided activist, but lets face it how much distance is there between her and the misguided activists who tried to ambush the ICE agents in Texas. Or the misguided activists in Portland that attempted to chain the doors and set the ICE building on fire in Portland?

[Josh R]

Stop the bullshit already. You sound like those who say Jan 6 was a false flag or a bunch of patriots trying to stop a steal. Do you really want to be lumped in with that nonsense? Every thinking person who is not a hopeless partisan with his head stuck up Trump's ass knows she was not trying to hit him (and knows Jan 6 was a riot and Trump was the one trying to steal the election).

Whether the ICE officer was justified by shooting (once, more than once) is debatable. As is whether ICE acted appropriately leading up to the shooting and whether the women acted appropriately. But not this disgusting domestic terrorism narrative where you equate her (or close to equating her) to those who set fire to buildings and ambush ICE agents. That's disgraceful.

[Magister]

Do you really want to be lumped in with that nonsense?

Appealing to MAGA shame, or just Kazinski's sense of shame? The same Kazinski who fires up blaming Democrats for a right-wing killing faster than an airbag inflates? Good luck!

[Kazinski]

Let's be clear Magister: all of my nonsense is my own.

Don't try to redistribute anyone else's nonsense and think I need it, and don't you dare try to take any of my own nonsense and give it to somebody else.

[bloocow2]

It is better if law enforcement agents just don't draw their guns at all when there's no lethal force coming from the other direction. I do not care if people are "obstructing" them, the standards of those officers need to be higher than just an average person with a gun. Using that gun should be the absolute last resort; in this case it appears it was the first or second resort (after yelling at the driver).

Fwiw, I don't believe this driver was intending to run the dude over, but could see how people might honestly disagree. I just don't think someone should have to lose their life for that.

[MarkJawz]

Okay, here's a proposal. The police will have heightened requirements to use deadly force, but getting within 50 feet of law enforcement officers in an operation is punishable by a mandatory 5 years in prison, which rises to 10 if the obstructer take out a phone.

Any takers?

[ducksalad]

The part about the phone is reveals what you're really about.

[MarkJawz]

It's an instrument of a crime.

[not guilty]

"It's an instrument of a crime."

Uh, no. It is no crime to make an audio and video recording of a police officer performing his duties in a public place.

I recall the apocryphal story that circulated in the wake of the beating of Rodney King that police put out an APB in regard to a suspect who "should be considered armed and dangerous -- he has a Camcorder."

[ducksalad]

It is no crime to make an audio and video recording of a police officer performing his duties in a public place.

To be fair, he's proposing to change the law. (Or he's doing a parody, it's getting so hard to tell.)

[ducksalad]

Your "proposal" wouldn't even cover this case. She didn't "get within" 50 feet of an operation, she was parked and the officers came up to her.

If you say it doesn't matter who came up to who, then every time a traffic cop pulls you over, you're already guilty of obstruction when the cop gets to your window.

You didn't think about this before you made it up, did you?

[MarkJawz]

No, she intentionally obstructed them, and you know it.

In any case, I'm not concerned with the supposed free speech rights of leftists who are advocating to destroy America. The First Amendment was intended to cover protests within the realm of reasonableness, and modern Democrat Party advocacy is outside of it, and should be suppressed.

[ThePublius]

Here's the video from the agent's phone of Good looking right at him through her windshield and stepping on the gas and hitting him, and him firing just after.

Attempting to run someone down is lethal force.

[SRG2]

Pointing a gun at a civilian who has not been pulled over for a traffic stop and who is complying with other LEOs is a threat of lethal force.

[Michael P]

Fwiw, I don't believe this driver was intending to run the dude over, but could see how people might honestly disagree. I just don't think someone should have to lose their life for that.

It's not a question of "have to", but of incurring the risk. When someone points a vehicle at another person and thereby puts a life at risk, it's only a question of whose life is more valued. You have made it clear that you think the felon's life is more valuable than the military veteran and law enforcement officer's. More than than, you think the felon should be safe while they continue to use their vehicle as a weapon and tool of crime.

[Josh R]

It shouldn't have escalated to the point where she tried to flee. The ICE agent should not have ordered her out of the car nor attempted to open the car door.

Instead, they should have said you must stop obstructing and if you don't you are under arrest. If she then flees, let her, but stay away as she does. You can arrest her later since you have her license plate (and her wife!).

[Michael P]

You can make those tactical choices all you want when you're the ICE agent in charge of a scene, assuming they're within policy.

How many times have you done that? What's your projected schedule to actually "do the work", as they say?

[Josh R]

ICE policies should not have permitted the agents to make the tactical choices they made. If the agents won't act as professionals per proper policies, they shouldn't be agents.

But as noted below, the shooter (and likely the agent who tried to open the car door) are tough-as-nails macho men who think they did no wrong.

[Michael P]

Yawn. So you've never been in their shoes, don't know their training, don't know their policies, and are just a sorry leftist stooge making excuses after the fact for a violent insurrectionist for the death that she earned through a series of successively worse choices.

[Josh R]

A violent insurrectionist! The bald-face lies continue.

[TwelveInchPianist]

When they do it it's a mostly peaceful protest, not a violent insurrection.

[SRG2]

We need to let the investigation be done and all the evidence gathered or we're just blowing in the wind.

Except the Feds cannot be trusted to conduct an independent investigation and they have attempted to cut the state out of the investigation.

[bernard11]

Right.

And if that doesn't tell you the conclusion is foregone then you're an idiot.

[Josh R]

citizens need to stop harassing ICE agents

Speech harassment is protected by the First Amendment.

[Malika la Maize]

The $80 annual America the Beautiful pass gives visitors access to more than 2,000 federal recreation sites. Since 2004, the pass has typically showcased sweeping landscapes or iconic wildlife, selected through a public photo contest. Past winners have featured places like Arches National Park in Utah and images of bison roaming the plains…

Instead, of a picture of nature, this year's design shows side-by-side portraits of Presidents George Washington and Trump. The new design has drawn criticism from parkgoers and ignited a wave of "do-it-yourself" resistance.

Photos circulating online show that many national park cardholders have covered the image of Trump's face with stickers of wildlife, landscapes, and yellow smiley faces, while some have completely blocked out the whole card…

The National Park Service card policy was updated this week to say that passes may no longer be valid if they've been "defaced or altered." The change, which was revealed in an internal email to National Park Service staff obtained by SFGATE, comes just as the sticker movement has gained traction across social media.

In a statement to NPR, the Interior Department said there was no new policy. Interagency passes have always been void if altered, as stated on the card itself. The agency said the recent update was meant to clarify that rule and help staff deal with confusion from visitors.

The Park Service has long said passes can be voided if the signature strip is altered, but the updated guidance now explicitly includes stickers or markings on the front of the card.

https://www.npr.org/2026/01/09/nx-s1-5672341/national-park-updates-guidelines-stop-visitors-defacing-trump-picture-pass

[Mr. Bumble]

So what's your point?

[Malika la Maize]

Trump’s petty vanity knows no bounds?

[Mr. Bumble]

...are these the same people who burned their draft cards?

[Malika la Maize]

Did they have pictures of LBJ on them?

[hobie]

I once saw some black and white footage of a time and place where defacing images of the leader was sanctioned. But I had a hard time following it because the narration was in German.

[David Nieporent]

Fun fact: the word "sanctioned," like the word "cleave," can mean itself or its opposite.

[JohnSmith97]

Leftist administrations are like that.

[Brett Bellmore]

Literally the only thing I care about my park access card is that the park ranger lets me in when I show it.

[Sarcastr0]

Symbols don't matter to you, but other people's preferred pronouns matter deeply to you.

Weird choices. Wonder what underlying pattern one could find to these principles.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...other people's preferred pronouns matter deeply to you."

I can't speak for Brett, but other people's preferred pronouns don't matter to me at all.

[hobie]

"Literally the only thing I care about bathroom access is that I get to take a shit at some point."

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Literally the only thing I care about my park access card is that the park ranger lets me in when I show it."

I stopped getting those cards because they started charging additional fees on top of the prices of the cards.

[Krayt]

The National Park Service card policy was updated this week to say that passes may no longer be valid if they've been "defaced or altered."

Wasn't there a SC ruling that defacing money wasn't defacing money if the intent wasn't to make it invalid?

And another where a guy put tape over a slogan on a license plate he disagreed with, and as long as it didn't make the licensing info unreadable, it was fine?

It seems covering up or scratching off something or other would fit right in with this.

[Armchair]

President Trump has indicated he would like to restrict large institutional investors from buying single family homes.

This actually follows New York State passing laws that do the same.

https://www.gtlaw.com/en/insights/2025/5/new-york-budget-law-may-discourage-institutional-ownership-of-single-and-two-family-homes

Recent evidence has suggested these large institutional investors adversely effect key areas of the market...specifically "starter homes" and limit opportunities for home ownership by individuals.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4649479

[Commenter_XY]

This is a shot across the bow of Bezos.
https://arrived.com/

This is what Trump is trying to slow down.

[Malika la Maize]

Is there no problem government restriction can’t solve?

[hobie]

Supporting cops shooting woman insurrectionist?! Fascism?! Nation building?! Government controlling production (real estate market)?!

These hayseeds are more Marxist than me now!

[Sarcastr0]

Trump gelds the CFPB, and then goes after credit card companies vastly harder than they ever could or would.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5682596-trump-credit-card-interest/

If this happens, the effect on the credit market won't be to just meekly roll over and eat the risk.

In his desperation to deal with affordability he's trying every potential policy left right and center but all ham-handed and stupid, so all they are is government throwing it's weight around to no effect but short-term chaos.

[Kazinski]

That was a TruthSocial post which is worth the paper its printed on.

Later he clarified/backpedaled asking for a 1 year voluntary interest rate reduction.

See my link above.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In the movie Dave, the pretend president brought in a friend to help him find money in the budget for a desired item.

Trump should call his friend Mayor Mamdani for advice about affordability. I'm semi-serious.

Anyway, I see someone is trying to parse (spin) the economic news in favor of Trump again. Doing so selectively.

If things were actually better in that department (aka the trains were running on time), he still would be horrible, and should be (legally) removed from office.

[Sarcastr0]

That was a very fun movie

[hobie]

[Malika la Maize]

Fox News claims to be airing the "entire video" -- but they're cutting off before the officer says, "fucking bitch."

https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:lm4eq2cftwbnrmzkzowigpt7/post/3mbzgbftht22i?ref_src=embed&ref_url=https%253A%252F%252Fwww.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com%252F2026%252F01%252Fim-not-mad-at-you

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump will have them sued. Don't worry.

[Frank Drackman]

Good Advertisement for the Honda Pilot, incompetent (dead)Woman Driver, deployed Airbag, and it kept going. Call Safelite, replace the Airbag (or not), probably run another 500,000 miles.

[Malika la Maize]

Demonstrating a level of competence in driving matching yours in the English language?

Or, in Frankie speak:

demonstrating a Level of Competence in Driving(matching)
yours in the english Language?

[Frank Drackman]

Done tole you, done lost my job, how I sposed to have money to pay dis Rent?
I'll have it for you tomorrow, next week, I don't know.

Frank

[hobie]

Christian hell is getting pretty full what with Kirk, Babbitt, men bobbing in the ocean, and now this antisemitic, marxist terrorist tranny from MN. You got any spare room in Jewish hell we can lease, Frankie?

[DDHarriman]

Can you still serve foreign billionaire revolutionaries in Jewish Hell? If so you might have a home...

[bernard11]

Sure, Hobie. But no pork chops or shrimp.

[hobie]

Reporter: "St. Peter, could even Epstein get into heaven?"
St. Peter: "Don't be ridiculous. Jeffrey Epstein ran an underage sex trafficking ring out of his private island....do you realize haw many shrimp he ate on that island?!"

[Trollificus]

And tje bacon! Oy vey!!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hobie, what exactly do you think the shrimp would be eating in that crystal clear blue water?

Shrimp can only live in places where you can’t see the bottom because they eat the stuff that makes the water cloudy.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, you would be amazed at how much it would cost to repair the front end damage to that vehicle. And then with unibody, you have to worry if the frame was bent or anything.

Notice that the rear tires came off the ground at the point of impact. That amount of force could well squish a little bit of the frame, just enough to give you funky driving problems.

[ThePublius]

Today Massachusetts will begin seizing homes in the Sagamore neighborhood of Round Hill to support the project to replace the Cape Cod bridges. It's quite sad for the homeowners, but what can you do? What can or should be done? Are they being treated fairly?

Massachusetts begins seizing homes today for Cape Cod bridge replacement

Homeowners tell Herald: ‘Fair market value doesn’t do it’

[Commenter_XY]

Ah the wonders of Blue State paradises.

[bernard11]

It's only blue states that use eminent domain, right, XY?

[ThePublius]

I don't think it's a "blue state" thing, I think it's an unfortunate circumstance, and I'm wondering if there were alternatives to taking the neighborhood (14 houses), and if the homeowners will be made whole.

[John F. Carr]

Twenty years ago politicians told MassHighway that it was not allowed to use eminent domain to improve the I-93/I-95 interchange north of Boston. Cape Code vacationers have more influence than commuters from the north.

[ThePublius]

I'm not following. Theses homeowners on Round Hill aren't vacationers. Or, are you saying that folks using the bridges have more sway than the homeowners?

[John F. Carr]

The folks using the bridges have more sway. The ratio of influence of (northern commuters) to (folks on the northeast corner of Woburn) is low. The ratio of influence of (Cape vacationers and businesses) to (folks along the canal) is high.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’m not sure that interchange is actually in Woburn. The exit just before it, route 28, is on the Stoneham/Reading line. The BJ’s that you can see south of there on I-93 is in Stoneham. The part of I 93 that crosses Washington Avenue is in Reading, although the I-95 Washington Avenue exit is in Woburn, as are the post office and stores.

Remember that I-95 was never built through Boston, Frank Sergeant stopped it in Peabody. It was supposed to go through the Lynn Marsh and out through the southwest corridor now used by the orange line. State Route 128 was like state Route 129 is today, a meandering route through various downtown. The current I-95 was built as a route 128 bypass through municipal fairgrounds and other unoccupied land between the towns and not to interstate specifications, hence all the curves.

Almost none of the land along it was developed when the road was built 70 years ago, it was initially known as the highway to nowhere. Burlington at the time was all pig farmers, they would collect garbage from the local communities and feed it to pigs, this was so-called eastern pork, which was considered inferior to corn fed western pork. The practice had largely ceased by the 1970s which is when you saw Burlington really start to be developed.

[DDHarriman]

Which foreign revolutionary billionaire will hobie be out serving today?

Prepare your billionaire bingo cards and we will track his service. Whomever gets the first Billionaire Bingo will win a $20 gift card for Denny's.

Be aware that noticing just a little too much might get you painted as an anti-semite. But hey, who doesn't like a good Grand Slam?

[Malika la Maize]

“Be aware that noticing just a little too much might get you painted as an anti-semite.”

You’re a known anti-Semite, of course. But thanks for demonstrating the pathetic nature of a lot of anti-PC discourse.

[DDHarriman]

How do you get a stinky pajeets hackles aroused? No, not be threatening to stop the open street shitting and women raping. I'll give you one guess.

[hobie]

Whoooeeee! That sign I got handed has given Harriman the vapours! So far as I can tell, Bill Gates is the only billionaire who hasn't kissed the ring or joined the administration. So I hope it's Bill that hires me.

[DDHarriman]

That's not true at all Revolutionary Comrade. I demonstrated to you yesterday your billionaire paymaster. It wasn't Bill Gates. You were serving the interests of a foreign billionaire.

How patriotic.

[Frank Drackman]

I stop for Law Enforcement, got pulled over on I-40 In Tennessee last month.
Dickson County Deputy Sheriff noticed one of my Tires was a little underinflated, offered to "Pump it Up" (HT Franz/Hans)
OK, it was probably just a subterfuge, they notice "The Odor of Marriage-a-Juan-a" then rip the car apart.
Nice thing about being a (sort of) old Jewish man, we don't "Fit the Profile" (Apparently Enterprises Range Rover did)
I do have to admit, 30 years ago it'd have been Trooper Bubba with a paunch, now it was a heavily armed bearded guy, more Body Armor than the guys wore at Omaha Beach, and his "Backup" (a Chick, pretty Hot with the Oakleys) made sure I didn't "try anything".

Frank

[ThePublius]

The smell of alcohol, smell of pot, are the only refuge the cops have now that there's so much phone and dashcam video prevalent. Too bad we don't have smell recorders. Yet.

[John F. Carr]

When marijuana was decriminalized in Massachusetts police decided they would testify to a strong odor, implying possession of more than the personal use limit. The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that testimony about odor was insufficient to establish probable cause no matter how many adjectives police used.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They probably knew it was a rental and well that itself is not probable cause, it would be in their minds.

[Malika la Maize]

Anyone who's read Ron Chernow's terrific biography of Ulysses S. Grant will remember Grant's bizarre obsession with annexing Santa Domingo (now the Dominican Republic). The President spent years on this project to no avail. He was convinced that Santa Domingo would be a great military and economic asset and couldn't understand why others didn't see it that way. So there's nothing new about a President musing about acquiring some remote island. 

In Grant's day, though. nobody thought that the President could do this on his own. Grant negotiated a treaty with Santa Domingo (by then an independent nation) to join the United States. But he could not get the treaty ratified by the Senate, largely due to Charles Sumner's opposition. That was that.

The same should be true for any acquisition of Greenland, via a treaty with Denmark. This mode would mean, of course, that two-thirds of the Senate would have to concur to make Greenland part of the United States. All prior territorial acquisitions from a foreign nation were formalized by a Senate ratified treaty. In other words, this cannot be done unilaterally or through an executive agreement ratified by a majority in each house of Congress.

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2026/01/greenland-is-new-santa-domingo.html?m=1

[Kazinski]

Grant was right, the Dominican Republic is a vital strategic baseball asset, Venezuela is too.

[Brett Bellmore]

"The same should be true for any acquisition of Greenland, via a treaty with Denmark."

The same should be true for any acquisition of Greenland, via a treaty with Greenland. Denmark has already legally committed itself to Greenland's future being decided by Greenlanders.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Prof. Gerard N. Magliocca, the author of that blog entry, recently had another book released, The Actual Art of Governing: Justice Robert H. Jackson's Concurring Opinion in the Steel Seizure Case. This concurrence can be found here:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/579/

The title is from this passage:

The actual art of governing under our Constitution does not, and cannot, conform to judicial definitions of the power of any of its branches based on isolated clauses, or even single Articles torn from context. While the Constitution diffuses power the better to secure liberty, it also contemplates that practice will integrate the dispersed powers into a workable government. It enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence, autonomy but reciprocity.

The concurrence had this rejection of originalism:

Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh.

Jackson, who had multiple positions in the FDR Administration, was wary of executive power, especially given the power of the modern president, a power much wider than originally thought.

He was also particularly concerned about emergency powers, including unlawful assertions of them by the president, which was ultimately the issue in the opinion.

Jackson also rejected Trump's recent comments about him only being restrained by his own morality.

The essence of our free Government is "leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the law" -- to be governed by those impersonal forces which we call law.

(quoting Kipling)

The book is well written and the main content is only about 150 pages. Magliocca favors brevity, including in his blog posts.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

That's a great poem by Kipling - "The Old Issue."

Too bad he didn't use the poem in a better cause. He was justifying the English side in what would soon become the Boer War - no matter how urgent colonial expansion may have been, the issues weren't as transcendent as the rhetoric suggests.

https://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/readers-guide/rg_oldissue1.htm

Nowadays, those who use the quote are applying "The Death of the Author"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

And use the poem as a general plea against tyranny.

[bloocow2]

(misplaced comment)

[Frank Drackman]

Your Stupidity is showing.

[DDHarriman]

That foreign national edited his comment then tried to claim it was just in the wrong spot.

Add bloocow2 to the massive left of foreign and democrat operatives on this board who have no integrity.

[Commenter_XY]

He is AussieTrash, similar to Eurotrash.

[John 4]

The hillbilly brigade is out in force today, I see.

[Sarcastr0]

Commenter, quoting psalms, cozying up to antisemites, and calling people trash.

I wonder when was the last time he got spiritual counsel?

[DDHarriman]

Great finger wag with some guilt by association. Great Karenning technique. Which foreign revolutionary billionaire funded your training comrade? Same as Revolutionary Hobes?

[Frank Drackman]

Can I be Frank?
If this was a MAGA "Karen" harassing some Ill-legal MS-13, then trying to run him over, the Usual Gang of Idiots (HT A. Newman) would be fellating each other to be the first in line to umm, fellate Abrego, or Julio, or Hey-Zeus, defending his 2d Amendment Rights.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

You equate ICE with MS-13? With friends like these….

[Sarcastr0]

Fascism, the U.S. government document explained, “is government by the few and for the few. The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state.” “The people run democratic governments, but fascist governments run the people.”

“The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires; hence—democracy must go! Anyone who is not a member of their inner gang has to do what he’s told. They permit no civil liberties, no equality before the law.” “Fascism treats women as mere breeders. ‘Children, kitchen, and the church,’ was the Nazi slogan for women,” the pamphlet said.

Fascists “make their own rules and change them when they choose…. They maintain themselves in power by use of force combined with propaganda based on primitive ideas of ‘blood’ and ‘race,’ by skillful manipulation of fear and hate, and by false promise of security. The propaganda glorifies war and insists it is smart and ‘realistic’ to be pitiless and violent.”

the U.S. had experienced “sorry instances of mob sadism, lynchings, vigilantism, terror, and suppression of civil liberties. We have had our hooded gangs, Black Legions, Silver Shirts, and racial and religious bigots. All of them, in the name of Americanism, have used undemocratic methods and doctrines which…can be properly identified as ‘fascist.’”

The War Department thought it was important for Americans to understand the tactics fascists would use to take power in the United States. They would try to gain power “under the guise of ‘super-patriotism’ and ‘super-Americanism.’” And they would use three techniques:

First, they would pit religious, racial, and economic groups against one another to break down national unity. Part of that effort to divide and conquer would be a “well-planned ‘hate campaign’ against minority races, religions, and other groups.”

Second, they would deny any need for international cooperation, because that would fly in the face of their insistence that their supporters were better than everyone else. “In place of international cooperation, the fascists seek to substitute a perverted sort of ultra-nationalism which tells their people that they are the only people in the world who count. With this goes hatred and suspicion toward the people of all other nations.”

Third, fascists would insist that “the world has but two choices—either fascism or communism, and they label as ‘communists’ everyone who refuses to support them.”

It is “vitally important” to learn to spot native fascists, the government said, “even though they adopt names and slogans with popular appeal, drape themselves with the American flag, and attempt to carry out their program in the name of the democracy they are trying to destroy.”

https://archive.org/details/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/mode/2up
via
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/january-9-2026

[Malika la Maize]

Fascism is basically Wilhot’s law combined with a fondness (to put it mildly) for action within a law of the jungle mentality.

[Sarcastr0]

There's like 5 different operable definitions of fascism at this point; I wouldn't use the ambiguous term but after Charlie Cook the worst Americans act like it's a personal attack on them, so now I gotta.

But yeah, what we got going on is basically Wilhoit’s law and "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must," with the idea that the US will be strong militarily and economically forever.

All the rest is excuses, eyewash, or weirdly specific hate for some civic institution. Very strong divorced dad energy.
There's some guy here who supports Trump because he'll get the communists out of public schools. Which sounds like he had a fight with a teacher that ended badly than an actual description of school teachers.

[Commenter_XY]

So when are you turning yourself in to the fascist police, Man of Science?

[ThePublius]

1. It's Wilhoit, not Wilhot;
2. he's full of shit. Just because he calls it a law doesn't make it so.

[DDHarriman]

Weird how this got ignored:

The objective is seizure and control of the economic, political, social, and cultural life of the state. Why? The democratic way of life interferes with their methods and desires for: (1) conducting business; (2) living with their fellow-men; (3) having the final say in matters concerning others, as well as themselves. The basic principles of democracy stand in the way of their desires;

Geesh, who do we know around here who wants to seize the means of production?? Besides Revolutionary Hobes, that is.

That aside:
Notice how it isn't cherry picked quotes sliced together to build a false narrative like yours.

An empiricist could look around today and easily find which category of people that description fits with. I guess great Science Thinkers like govie Sarcastr0 aren't into empiricism anymore. After all, as a Scientismist, there is no objective reality. It's peoples individual axioms and lived experiences that dictate the objective truth.

[Michael P]

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/minneapolis-uncovered.php

The left is committing insurrection again, and targeting random businesses again based on nothing but rumors.

(Re-muted trolls need not respond with vacuous ad hominem attacks on the reporter scooping all the legacy media on this story.)

[hobie]

Look at them storm that building! I'll betcha once they get inside they'll break a bunch of stuff and stalk around for government employees.

[Mr. Bumble]

Lucky for them that they are not in Iran.
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/middle-east/iran-eastern-states/artc-report-over-200-dead-in-tehran-as-regime-forces-open-fire-on-protesters

[hobie]

They open fire on unarmed civilians as well? Sad.

[ThePublius]

So, you're alluding to Good getting shot? At the wheel of a car aimed at an agent, she wasn't unarmed. Jerk.

[hobie]

Nothing makes a mask-hating MAGA patriot's blood run colder than watching a woman make a three-point turn in a Honda

[ThePublius]

Oh, that's all she was doing? She wasn't parked cross-wise in the road to impede ICE vehicles. Her wife wasn't taunting officers? She didn't fail to comply when ordered to exit the vehicle? She didn't step on the gas with an officer in front of her car? She didn't hit the officer?

Get a brain. You can't be so partisan that you manufacture some version of reality that suits your partisanship, can you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure he can. He can see you holding up five fingers without even straining.

[hobie]

About 100 million American voters who also cannot see them five fingers, Brett. There's a medical name for it too: non-MAGA Hodgkins myopia.

[DDHarriman]

According to CNN, this devout Christian mother of 3 was just there to pick up her 6 year old.

In retrospect, good thing that kid has two moms so mom can just her up at the same spot on Monday.

[Sarcastr0]

Initially, in a social media post on Dec. 24, DHS stated the two men who were taken into custody by ICE in Glen Burnie were in a van they claimed had been driven “directly at ICE officers” and that the driver, Tiago Alexandre Sousa-Martins, was shot by officers “defensively.”

The account described a second man, Solomon Antonio Serrano-Esquivel, as being in the passenger’s seat of the van driven by Sousa-Martins, and that he was injured when Sousa-Martins “wrecked his van.”

But, on Friday, Anne Arundel County Police said in a news release that Serrano-Esquivel was not in the van driven by Sousa-Martins.

In fact, he was “already in custody in an ICE vehicle.” It added that the other individual, Sousa-Martins, “was struck by gunfire while operating a separate vehicle.”

https://wtop.com/maryland/2026/01/department-of-homeland-security-changes-its-account-of-christmas-eve-shooting-by-ice-officers/

At this point the ICE apologists aren’t just gullible. They like this admin killing liberals who don’t comply.

[Sarcastr0]

More:

Since July, immigration agents have shot at least six people behind the wheel of a vehicle.

The same playbook is used each time: the agent says they “feared for their life” as a vehicle was “weaponized” against them. Juries should decide, but we tie their hands.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/renee-good-wasnt-first-person-shot-her-car-ice-justification-followed-familiar-script

[ThePublius]

Hey, don't step on the gas when an officer is standing in front of your car and you won't get shot. Pretty simple, isn't it?

(Why the scare quotes around “feared for their life” and “weaponized?” Are you saying those assertions are untrue?)

[Sarcastr0]

Six times.

It’s a playbook.

And you’re too tribal and thick headed to see even when the pattern is laid out before you, ICE’s story changing and all.

[ThePublius]

No, it's not, except maybe a playbook on the part of the so-called protesters, those interfering with ICE enforcement operations. Six episodes is actually a minute fraction of the number of enforcement actions taken, and the number of illegal immigrants apprehended and removed.

Is it so hard to believe that an escaping illegal or an interfering 'protester' would step on the gas with an officer in front of the vehicle?

And there's no need to name call and insult me, but I know that's just part of your shtick. Typical Alinskyesque behavior.

[John 4]

Man, those ICE agents must have some mighty clean boots.

[ducksalad]

Is it so hard to believe that an escaping illegal or an interfering 'protester' would step on the gas with an officer in front of the vehicle?

He answered your question before you asked it. Normally, it would not be hard to believe that an escaping illegal or an interfering 'protester' would step on the gas with an officer in front of the vehicle. But the whole point of Sarc's comment was that because ICE and the administration have been caught lying over and over again about shootings and other incidents, we can't just take their word for anything.

I would also add that if it turns out that in some aspect of this they aren't lying, you are still not vindicated and we were still right to doubt them. Because all the way back to the time of Aesop the proper and just punishment for liars is to not be believed when they tell the truth.

And there's no need to name call and insult me

Agreed. Let's see if bold font and repetition do the trick.

[Bunny495]

See my post below about lying. I could easily find a hundred times the MSM has lied about thing for every time you could find a time ICE lied.

[ducksalad]

So what?

[ThePublius]

I watched the officer's cell phone video, which shows him getting hit by the car. No lies.

[ducksalad]

My friend, his post wasn't even about the Minnesota shooting and lying.

It was about an event in Portland and not even ICE claims an officer was hit by the car in Portland. If you have video showing otherwise, please link.

Because I'm not rude like Sarc I'll call your comment....an honest mistake.

[ThePublius]

Ah, yes, thank you. I was thinking of the Minnesota incident.

[ducksalad]

Well, I can't laugh at you since I got confused too. It wasn't in Portland, it was in Glen Burnie, MD.

[Estragon]

I just want to emphasize that incident took place in a medical office parking lot.

[ducksalad]

Obviously some of us need to read more carefully before we post, and this time I have to include myself.

[Kenneth Almquist]

That video does not show the officer getting hit by the car. That doesn’t mean that the officer wasn’t hit by the car; the front left corner of the car is out of the frame at the time that any impact would have occurred. But if the officer was struck by the car, the video doesn’t show it.

[DDHarriman]

Six times out of how many stops?

Shouldn't that matter in your analysis?

Are you a for real science policy advisor? This is how you reason? No wonder the federal government sucks so bad.

[David Nieporent]

(Why the scare quotes around “feared for their life” and “weaponized?” Are you saying those assertions are untrue?)

Only in the sense of being false, yes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

"He was shot trying to escape."

[Estragon]

“Weaponized their vehicle” is the new “shot while attempting to escape.”

[ThePublius]

No, it's not, not at all. Have you seen the officer's cell phone video? He was, indeed, struck by the vehicle.

[Estragon]

You may justify what we all saw with our own eyes in any way you please.

[Michael P]

The only people trying to justify attempted vehicular homicide are the usual trolls.

The rest of us don't need to justify anything. Lawful self-defense is inherently justified.

[Estragon]

As I said— however you please. Decent people can also draw their own conclusions.

[grb]

You have to understand the rightwingers here. They can't creditably think or show the ICE officer was in personal danger when he killed Good, but don't believe they have to. To them, as long as you see "plausible deniability" squinting your eyes just so, then the officer's hunting license is automatically triggered and he can claim a trophy. It's pro-murder empty formalism and straight from Authoritarianism 101.

The officer was in no personal danger when he fired the first shot. Because the car was already pulling away from him, it was squeezed into the very corner of the windshield. And he was obviously in no personal danger with the following two shots, gangland-execution-style thru the driver-side open window. Personal danger had nothing whatsoever to do with it. He was pissed. So he killed.

[Michael P]

If you want to be that upset, be upset at Good and her passenger. They were the ones who made this a violent incident. They intentionally provoked this kind of response. It is unfortunate that they were that cavalier with the lives of both an ICE agent and themselves -- but the two provocateurs are the only ones responsible for Good's death.

The law, and reasonable people, understand that the question of imminent danger of grievous bodily harm is not answered by Monday morning quarterbacking on a frame-by-frame basis made after an assailant has already struck one law enforcement officer and could be gearing up to come around for another pass.

It is telling that the shills here imply that Good was about to totally abandon her partner in crime in order to drive off into the sunset. They obviously think nothing of such an action.

[grb]

Michael P : "... gearing up to come around for another pass."

Like I said, the rightwingers here can't credibly believe their own bullshit. But they don't care. If a transparently bogus excuse is available, that works to excuse murder for them. They don't think a real argument is needed as long as a pretend argument can stand in its place.

Take Michael P here as an example. Questioned why the killer fired two head shots thru the driver's open window, he comes-up with his hilarious doozy above. "So, Officer, why did you execute the murder victim, Blood or Crips-style, as she drove by?"

"Because I was afraid she would drive off, turn around, and return! I was afraid! For my life !!!"

See? Laughable nonsense. I doubt even Michael P is dumb enough to believe it. But he thinks it just might service as a barely passable excuse that kinda justifies murder (as long as you don't look too closely). And that's enough for him. He doesn't want the law to apply here.

[Michael P]

You don't understand the law, and you're a denialist about the facts.

You know why the agent shot: his life was in danger. The fact that he was not in immediate danger of death during the half-second you fixate on doesn't matter. People who are smarter than you realize that, which is why they are either telling you that you're wrong or have run off to troll different threads.

[Life of Brian]

It is telling that the shills here imply that Good was about to totally abandon her partner in crime in order to drive off into the sunset.

It's really quite mind-boggling. If she genuinely believed she was in danger from the agents, the impulse she chose to follow was not to try to save her partner from that danger, but to try to save herself and leave her partner right smack in the middle of that supposed danger.

That's indeed a pretty telling sign of the actual depth of their relationship, unless she was planning to circle back around and save her beloved by picking them off one by one.

[Estragon]

Wow this is fun. What do you think shooting a woman three times in the head and then muttering “fuckin bitch” says about the depth of the relationship between Mr. Ross and his wife? As long as we’re speculating.

[Life of Brian]

and then muttering “fuckin bitch”

I know this is one of the assigned talking points, but it really seems pretty silly. That this was all he said about someone who had just launched a multi-ton vehicle directly at him actually seems like quite admirable restraint.

[Estragon]

“assigned talking points”

I think it was one of HIS talking points, technically. No speculation about the state of his marriage? Cmon, why so coy? Give us your psychoanalysis.

[Life of Brian]

Nah, John 4 first brought it up in yesterday's open thread, then Qualika in today's, and it's all over social media as well. Clearly people just taking up a chant that feels like it should be good for their team without even stepping back and thinking about it.

I guess I can take some comfort that folks around here didn't take up the other, even dumber viral meme: that she couldn't have been trying to kill the ICE agent because shortly before things went sideways one of her inflammatory jeers was something like "I'm not mad at you."

[Estragon]

“without even stepping back and thinking about it”

That you would have been more effusive doesn’t change the fact the he said it.

Why so reluctant to share your psychoanalytic analysis that you were so eager to proclaim with Ms Good? It’s like you’re not even trying! You remain unsurpassed in your gormlessness.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, I understand you're trying to work up a false-equivalence distraction, but it's just not even close.

The agent calling someone who nearly mowed him down a "fucking bitch" is utterly consistent with a cathartic response to having just faced a genuine threat to his life.

Tearing off and leaving her partner standing there in the midst of the agents is utterly inconsistent with a belief that the agents were posing an actual threat.

[Estragon]

What equivalence? I am asking for your psychoanalysis of the shooter and the depth of his marital relationship based on his actions and statements— you know— the equivalent of what you were so eager to do above! Why so slippery?

[Life of Brian]

What equivalence?

Thanks -- couldn't have said it better myself.

I commented on her relationship with her partner because they both were there at the scene, and she took actions that would have gravely impacted her partner's safety were her supposed panic (that, to be clear, all you apologists have been trying to mind-read into her head for the past 3 days, not I) actually genuine.

The agent's wife, just to spell it out for the kids in the back row... well, WASN'T there. No relevance to the situation at all -- just a sad distraction you're trying to haul in to the discussion, probably because the supposed actual merits you and others paraded around during the earlier gray-cloud phase are crumbling around you.

[Estragon]

I’m sorry— so you’re limiting your armchair psychoanalysis on the basis of who was present at the scene? Why should it matter to you? You are observing through the power of the internet!

I’m merely asking for the speculation that you were so willing to give above. Cmon, spitball for us. How do you think Mr and Mrs Ross are doing? What does shooting someone three times in the head and then calling the victim a fuckin bitch say about the depth of his relationship with his wife? Don’t get all shy now because Mrs Ross wasn’t on scene.

Here: I’ll go first. I bet they were stressed when he got injured earlier this year!

Now your turn:

[Brett Bellmore]

I think we can more than credibly show that the ICE officer was in personal danger when he made the decision to shoot her, and much as I might wish we all had super-fast reasoning, he was still acting on that decision as the situation rendered it invalid.

[David Nieporent]

It is amazing how MAGA has convinced itself that the label of homicide victim applies to the guy who wasn't injured in any way, rather than the person who was shot in the head.

[Michael P]

Only if you're as dumb as a brick.

"Shot while attempting to escape" is an excuse that's available when there is not video footage from every direction showing what happened. In this case, there is exactly that kind of footage.

[Estragon]

You are completely missing my point, but that is not exactly a surprise.

[Michael P]

As usual, you act like a point you did not spell out is much stronger than it really is.

There's a reason for this.

[Estragon]

Well, not everyone is as dumb as a brick.

[Michael P]

Only you leftists!

[Estragon]

Blah blah blah. Go bother someone else.

[Michael P]

Famous words from losers who know they don't have a leg to stand on.

[hobie]

I haven't seen these Young Republicans this defensive since the Epstein Files.

[Estragon]

There does indeed be some creeping realization that decent people might view these events differently. I figure why that’s the Trumpists all so stridently here— it’s a safe space of sorts to say the things that they are too cowardly to say IRL.

[hobie]

Yeah...to rationalize Epstein they've had to take the stance that them tweens were actually sexually mature enough and enthused enough to consent to trafficking. Now this Nicole Good person...we get to watch her get compared to Hitler in real time.

[John 4]

hobie, you forgot most of these guys empathize with Hitler. This Good character is more of a Pol Pot.

[hobie]

I think Nicole is more like Thanos...or possibly Sauron

....the fucking bitch

[Dr. Ed 2]

https://freebeacon.com/national-security/trumps-venezuela-operation-deals-blow-to-another-dangerous-trade-iranian-drones/

A shortage of drones would prevent the Iranian government from monitoring the Iranian population for impure thoughts.

We love Trump!

[Estragon]

One other thing that has really scared me about all this… the “fuckin bitch” video. The ICE guy himself sent this video to the press. I had assumed the opposite— it was leaked or something. The only reason you do that is if you think the video portrays you in a positive light. Which, in turn, says something about the internal working culture at ICE, and the type of people this guy is surrounded by in his personal life. Maybe he’s a VC regular. See also “five shots and seven holes” or whatever the quote was.

[Brett Bellmore]

The usual "Speech I don't like is violence, and violence I like is speech."; You're more upset about a couple harsh words that about vehicular assault.

And given the smirk on her face, screw reckless, it was intended.

[hobie]

I don't think Estragon is complaining about the words used. Rather, it shows the agent not experiencing terror, instead he seems to have vituperative contempt for the lady.

[John 4]

She smirked!

[hobie]

Driving while liberal?

[Mr. Bumble]

Aren't you overlooking her white.liberal, lesbian supremacy?

[Sarcastr0]

The shooting and killing of the lady is violence.

Your turning maybe a smirk into telepathic evidence of intent is just you rationalizing liberal death.

[Brett Bellmore]

I was willing to believe that she maybe hadn't noticed his presence, until I saw the video from his camera, and saw that she looked straight at him as she gunned it.

At this point you call not ignoring ANYTHING you want people to ignore "telepathy".

[Michael P]

He wasn't trying to convince leftist morons whose minds are so closed that they will never look at facts. He was showing the reasonable people in the world -- and America -- that the lady tried to run him over. She knew he was there, and tried to drive through him in order to flee arrest.

[John 4]

That smirking fucking bitch!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/01/donald-trump-news-ice-renee-good-minneapolis.html

[Michael P]

As Matt Yglesias put it: "Slate had a whole editorial style that was based around provocative — some would say trolly — articles and up-is-down theses. At its best, Slate championed unpopular causes and provoked fantastic debates. At its worst, Slate seemed to be deliberately stretching to come up with indefensible ideas. But everyone understood what made a pitch a Slatepitch."

Even The Daily Beast was once willing to call out Slate for being retarded: https://www.thedailybeast.com/historys-vilest-slatepitch-asks-why-do-we-bitterly-cling-to-free-speech/

[rswallen]

This seems like catch-22:
- if he sends the video, he thinks it shows him acting perfectly.
- if he doesn't send the video, he is trying to hide something.
- if he sends the video with the vulgarities edited out, he is trying to hide them because he knows he shouldn't have said that, which is evidence of a guilty mind, so its off to the electric chair.

Okay, that last one was a bit hyperbolic. Heaven forbid the dude is just trying to get a video showing his perspective out into the public.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

In varying degrees, each team playing Wild Card Weekend has a chance to win. The Panthers, the biggest underdog, already beat the Rams. OTOH, one ESPN prediction has the Rams winning it all.

If things go bad for the Panthers (who are due for a win; they had a win-one, lose-one thing going on, and now they lost two in a row, though the Saints' loss gave them the division lead) it might not be much of the game. The others seem like they should be competitive.

[SRG2]

Thus the Lincoln Project: "The Don't Tread On Me folks are sure turning into Comply Or Die."

[Michael P]

That's the leftist propaganda organization run by sex fiends pretending to be Republicans, right?

It says a lot that you follow them.

[SRG2]

That's the leftist propaganda organization run by sex fiends pretending to be Republicans, right?

Naturally you think that anyone who does not kowtow to Dear Leader is a leftist. It's a necessary part of the Cultist Credo.

[Bunny495]

One more time the MSM confirms it is never to be trusted. The first description they provided of Renee Good was a mother of three with a flattering picture of an "All American blonde" with flowing hair smiling and wearing a dress with bare shoulders. Later it turns out to quote Bob Dylan "her picture was from another time and place; she looks nothing like that" and she had lost custody of two of her children and the father of child she had custody of was dead. In fact he was a dead veteran who served in country during the Iraq war which entitles the child to monthly payments; something that raises a question about viewing him as a cash cow. More recent pictures show her overweight with tats and a nose ring. It is easy to bash her choice of putting the kid in Stonebridge World School. " According to recent state assessment data and school report cards, the school’s proficiency rates are notably below the Minnesota state average. Math Proficiency: Recent data indicates that approximately 8% of students are meeting grade-level standards in math. Reading Proficiency: Approximately 17% of students are testing at or above grade level in reading. The schools Mission Statement: "To provide an elementary education that is child-centered, community-based, and focused on the development of the whole child through a lens of social justice and equity. "Key Curriculum Highlights: Social Justice Focus: The school explicitly states that it integrates social justice into the daily curriculum. This includes "understanding power dynamics," "recognizing systemic inequities," and "empowering students to be agents of change." Restorative Practices: Instead of traditional discipline, the school uses "restorative circles," which is a common practice in activist-aligned educational environments aimed at reducing the "school-to-prison pipeline." Community Activism: The school often partners with local community organizations for projects. Critics point to these partnerships as evidence of "ideological grooming," while the school describes them as "real-world civic engagement." I have to question any parent that would accept only 8% of the students at grade level math performance, not to mention I would bet this is probably the "new math"".

I get that increasing acceptance of lesbian (and other nontraditional lifestyles) but it seems obvious that the MSM chose to portray Good as a very traditional mother when she was nothing close to that. While I am not sure what preferred pronouns she chose, I do her preferred pronouns now are was/were. As an aside I have tried to use quotation marks to indicate cut and paste and freely admit this is not my strong suit.

[Michael P]

Hey, parents have the right to direct the upbringing of their children. Some parents make really bad choices, like putting their kids in schools "focused on the development of the whole child through a lens of social justice and equity" instead of teaching them the three R's, basic science, and life success skills like being organized, being punctual and following through on commitments. The wonder of a free country is it allows people to make that kind of brain-dead decision.

And fortunately, we are equally allowed to criticize that kind of bad choice, to try to deter people from escalating them into even worse choices, like threatening the life or health of government officials.

[hobie]

From 2014:

US Border Agents Intentionally Stepped in Front of Moving Vehicles to Justify Shooting at Them
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-border-agents-intentionally-stepped-front-moving-vehicles-justify-shooting-them/

"The Los Angeles Times obtained an internal review of US Border Patrol’s use-of-force policies...it examined sixty-seven use-of-force incidents by federal border agents near the US-Mexico border that resulted in nineteen deaths...some key findings...'Border Patrol agents have intentionally and unnecessarily stepped in front of moving cars to justify using deadly force against vehicle occupants.'"

Guess where Jonathan Ross worked from 2007-2013?

[ThePublius]

The assertion that agents stepped in front of vehicles to justify using deadly force is speculative nonsense. How would they - the reporters - determine why an agent did anything in particular?

Why do you believe this crap?

[DDHarriman]

Because he is commanded too.

[hobie]

Bill paid me $20 to post that.

[DDHarriman]

Notice how you keep trying to muddy the waters by referencing an American billionaire?

Surely even some thing like you can sense how wrong it is for foreign billionaires to be conducting boots-on-the-ground influence ops on our soil.

[hobie]

Here's that internal CBP report before the lying liar reporters got ahold of it. https://www.cbp.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PERFReport.pdf

"Shooting at Vehicles
Fifteen cases were reviewed where shots were fired at or into vehicles by CBP agents.
Observations:
Based on a review of the submitted cases, it appears that CBP practice allows shooting at the driver of any suspect vehicle that comes in the direction of agents. It is suspected that in many vehicle shooting cases, the subject driver was attempting to flee from the agents who intentionally put themselves into the exit path of the vehicle, thereby exposing themselves to additional risk and creating justification for the use of deadly force. In most of these cases, the agents have stated that they were shooting at the driver of a vehicle that was coming at them and posing an imminent threat to their life. In some cases, passengers were struck by agents’ gunfire. Little focus has been placed on defensive tactics that could have been used by shooting agents such as getting out of the way. It should be recognized that a ½ ounce (200 grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000 pound moving vehicle, and if the driver of the approaching vehicle is disabled by a bullet, the
vehicle will become a totally unguided threat. Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.

The cases suggest that some of the shots at suspect vehicles are taken out of frustration when agents who are on foot have no other way of detaining suspects who are fleeing in a vehicle.

Most reviewed cases involved non-violent suspects who posed no threat other than a moving vehicle.

There is little doubt that the safest course for an agent faced with an oncoming vehicle is to get out of the way of the vehicle.

CBP policy should be “Agents shall not discharge their firearms at or from a moving vehicle unless deadly physical force is being used against the police officer or another person present, by means other than a moving vehicle.” Training and
policy changes should be implemented to implement this policy."

Yikes! The odds are highly favorable for your boy being one or more of them 15 incidents. Better hope there's an administration in place that will disappear the raw data the report relied on.

[Estragon]

Sarcastro, above, asks if there is a playbook behind these ICE shootings. And I think that’s a great question. Consider:

Greg Bovino stated on television over the summer that he takes orders on use of force from Kristi Noem and the White House. Subsequently, in deposition in the Chicago litigation, he stated he does not take orders from Kristi Noem on use of force. By process of elimination he takes orders on use of force from the White House. That means Steven Miller.

Greg Bovino was present at the killing of Ms. Good.

Question: is the reason FBI is excluding Minnesota from the investigation into the shooting of Ms. Good to conceal the use of force guidelines Bovino is getting from Steven Miller? What is FBI trying to cover up?

Some dates of note:

-SCOTUS ruling 12/24.
-Trump announces withdrawal of National Guard 12/31.
-ICE announces Minnesota operation 1/1.

You can draw your own conclusions about what’s coming. I have some ideas.

[DDHarriman]

If it's 6 out 7, then a playbook is a reasonable inference to people with human cognitive abilities.

If it's 6 out of 100,000 stops, do you bugs think that is also a playbook? Or do you just require the number 6 in isolation and without greater context?

Are you even allowed to form your own thought? Are you even capable?

[Estragon]

Great point. A question I would ask is whether the use of force directives from Steven Miller changed after the adverse ruling on Guard deployment 12/24.

[DDHarriman]

Thank you for being more respectful in your reply than I was in mine.

Noted.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Trump v. Illinois was 12/23.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/25a443_new_b07d.pdf

[Estragon]

TY

[rswallen]

> Greg Bovino stated on television over the summer that he takes orders on use of force from Kristi Noem and the White House. Subsequently, in deposition in the Chicago litigation, he stated he does not take orders from Kristi Noem on use of force. By process of elimination he takes orders on use of force from the White House. That means Steven Miller.

Alternatively, when he was on TV, when he wasn't under oath, he was talking bullshit but when he was deposed and was under oath, he reversed tack completely.

[Estragon]

Well, he is a known liar.

[DDHarriman]

For any casual observers:

Now you can understand why after they blatantly stole 2020, with an overwhelming amount of evidence that they still reject the objective truth.

There is an overwhelming amount of evidence about who Good was, why she was there, and her attempting to run over that officer. There is a clear video of him being hit by the car, but they still reject it.

There is no point in debating these NPCs. They have no agency or independent thought. I'm not even sure they should still be considered human. Maybe they have devolved into some bug like creature with a collective conscious. From the looks of it, their entire collective brain power is still lesser to an reknowned Internet Champ like myself.

[ducksalad]

Just happened to remember, reading today's comments, that I get a jury summons fairly frequently.

Once on the jury, I'm strictly entitled to decide which witnesses and evidence I find credible. And to vote not guilty for any reason or for no reason.

It only takes one, and there's nothing any MAGA can do about it!

Well, not likely to occur, but it's a happy thought.

[DDHarriman]

Every democrat on a jury thinks just like you. We are used to it. It's the Black Heart Gold Heart framework.

Remember that when you see all these trial outcomes, against the Good Guys ( tee hee get it?], remember that Democrat partisans poison juries to ignore the facts of the case to derive politically desired outcomes.

Democrat judges do it too. We've seen it on steroids this past year.

They pay lipservice to the rule of law and blind justice, but they are Living Constitutionists and Living Statutory Interpretationists.

[ducksalad]

Well, I'm not a Democrat, but it's comforting to know I won't have to hold out alone. Thanks!

But anyway, juries are part of the American rule of law. Maybe you forgot that.

[DDHarriman]

Objective and fair juries, you mean. Right?

Not Democrat ones.

[ducksalad]

Agreed, objective.

The objective fact is that it is known that currently federal agents and DoJ personnel lie a lot, and in court in particular. Any objective person on a jury has a duty take that into account.

If the only evidence is the word of a federal agent something said by a US attorney, there is objectively (in my opinion, which if I'm the juror is the opinion that counts) reasonable doubt, because, as I said, they are known to lie.

Of course there could be other evidence. But don't get all holy about DNA and video, because federal agents can lie about where they got samples and lie about whether they doctored the video.

But then there is also jury nullification. Which Democrats generally oppose, but I'm not a Democrat. I'm a Libertarian and think jury nullification is a thing.

[SRG2]

I'm a Libertarian and think jury nullification is a thing.

A while ago, I emailed the author of a blog contrasting the US attitude to nullification with the British attitude (judges don't get bent out of shape by it, juries can be persuaded to nullify when the government is acting in bad faith). In the (grateful) response, the author cc'd Stewart Rhodes of the Oathkeepers.

[ducksalad]

Well, I can't help it if the Oathkeepers support indoor plumbing and jury nullification. I'll continue to be in favor of having both available.

Keeping in mind, of course, Moderation4Ever's observation that just because you can do something doesn't always mean you should.

[SRG2]

I too am in favour - the Ponting case being the classic example of where it's needed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Ponting#Charges_under_the_Official_Secrets_Act

[DDHarriman]

You just think the Feds & DoJ started lying just now? Like this past year?

lol wtf

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The objective fact is that it is known that currently federal agents and DoJ personnel lie a lot, and in court in particular. Any objective person on a jury has a duty take that into account."

If you admit that you'll take that into account, they won't let you on the jury.

[ducksalad]

It works the way the other too. Last time I made to the voir dire stage the defense lawyer asked if we always had to believe the police.

I was surprised that several people in the pool asserted that if a police officer witnessed something then that's legally indisputable proof that it happened. One guy asked why a trial is needed if the police already knew who did it. Apparently he thought the purpose of a jury is to help the police "find" the perp. A sort of indoor posse.

There was one woman who stood up and started screaming at the defense lawyer and at another person in the pool when he shrugged and said it was possible that a cop could lie. Said they were undermining the rule of law and she wouldn't tolerate it. Turned out she was the wife of a police officer.

None of them made it onto the jury.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

And, one MAGA juror could block a guilty verdict in another case.

Such is the system & it has worked pretty well so far.

Civil trials sometimes aren't so strict.

[ducksalad]

And, one MAGA juror could block a guilty verdict in another case.

Better that ten guilty people go free et cetera. Seeing lots of MAGAs in jail isn't my objective, at least not when I'm calm and the AC is working.

[John F. Carr]

I've heard of jurors being removed for refusing to participate in deliberations. From the outside refusing to deliberate might be hard to distinguish from being the sole dissenting vote when the defendant is obviously guilty.

[ducksalad]

Oh, have no fear, I'd deliberate plenty. A new film: "Eleven Angry Men and One Grinning Libertarian".

[Mr. Bumble]

...One Grinning Libertarian [Asshole]".

[ducksalad]

Good afternoon, Mr. Bumble. Hope your day is going well.

[Mr. Bumble]

Thank you. As well as any. Got a meatloaf in the oven and a glass of Bell's 12 year old Royal Vat.
Maybe I'll re-watch "12 Angry Men " tonight.
Or better yet "My Cousin Vinnie" (Marissa Tomei was soooo hot).

[Brett Bellmore]

Last night we watched Amazing Grace: The Untold Story. Very moving, I highly recommend it.

[Estragon]

You should try Ann Romney’s meatloaf cake recipe. Also, I got some German curry ketchup to put with it that was awesome.

[Armchair]

"Once on the jury, I'm strictly entitled to decide which witnesses and evidence I find credible. And to vote not guilty for any reason or for no reason."

"It only takes one, and there's nothing any MAGA can do about it!"

Technically speaking...not true. You take that pesky juror's oath. And if you're found to have violated it...you can be charged with perjury. If you vote "not guilty" because you, for example, have a prior bias and just want to uphold that bias....there may be perjury charges.

[ducksalad]

That would be a great look for Republicans - jailing jurors for failing to vote as the DoJ wants them to.

Maybe you could start by jailing the jury that acquitted sandwich man.

[not guilty]

"Technically speaking...not true. You take that pesky juror's oath. And if you're found to have violated it...you can be charged with perjury. If you vote 'not guilty' because you, for example, have a prior bias and just want to uphold that bias....there may be perjury charges."

Not in federal court. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1621(1), a perjury conviction requires that the accused commits perjury when and only when:

having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true

The taking of the oath and the subsequent swearing or subscription of a material matter are separate events. Each is an essential element.

And Fed.R.Evid. 606(b) sharply circumscribes testimony about jury deliberations.

[hobie]

Time to break out the Sesame Street 'One of these things is not like the other...'. In this episode, when a shooter confronts an angry protester, try and pick out who's the saint and who's the antisemitic marxist tranny neegro, :

Kyle Rittenhouse - some dudes
Michael Boyd - Saint Ashtray Babbitt
Jonathan Ross - Nichole Good

[DDHarriman]

Haha yeah, Comrade! Revolution can be assured by comparing apples to oranges to lemons!

Bravo! Social order will surely now collapse and a the warmth of Collectivism will finally be realized!! For the first time in human history!!

[John F. Carr]

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette will shut down on May 3. The announcement came shortly after the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a labor dispute. A union got a court order increasing benefits. The owners are tired of losing money. The union is going to stand by its principles.

In parts of Europe unions and management have a cooperative relationship, much better than in the United States. They work so well together that a few countries don't have minimum wage laws. Each sector negotiates its own wage structure. The EU just said such cooperative alternatives to a minimum wage are illegal.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.wesa.fm/economy-business/2026-01-07/pittsburgh-post-gazette-shutting-down

More effort should be made to have conversations about how other nations do things, including things like judicial review.

[ducksalad]

Suppose a credit card company continues to charge more than 10% interest on someone's card after January 20th. When called on it, they respond that there is no law forbidding it.

What action can the president take against them?

Please be informed that we will no longer let the American Public be “ripped off” by Credit Card Companies that are charging Interest Rates of 20 to 30%, and even more, which festered unimpeded during the Sleepy Joe Biden Administration. AFFORDABILITY! Effective January 20, 2026, I, as President of the United States, am calling for a one year cap on Credit Card Interest Rates of 10%. Coincidentally, the January 20th date will coincide with the one year anniversary of the historic and very successful Trump Administration. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP

[hobie]

Reporter: "Mr. President, will you also be clamping down on the usurious transaction fees charged by crypto exchanges?"
Trump: "Absolutely!"

[John F. Carr]

"What action can the president take against them?"

Do you mean strictly legally, or what can he get away with?

Federal regulators can make life difficult. That's why companies are paying Trump to leave them alone.

[MarkJawz]

So can state regulators, as LeShaniqua James showed in New York.

[DDHarriman]

https://media.scored.co/post/CfToXYM56u61.jpeg

lol

[Bunny495]

As I have posted before I am probably spending too much time playing around with AI. Got this answer to a prompt on Grok (I switch between Grok, Gemini, and ChatGPT) and thought it would be of interest here.

"You’ve hit on the exact intersection where modern technology meets federal law: the use of digital forensics to turn a "protest" into a "conspiracy."

In your view, both the civil rights claim (the agent's aggression) and the conspiracy claim (the activists' coordination) can be true. From a legal standpoint, you are absolutely right—they are not mutually exclusive.

1. The Fed's Updated Digital "Dragnets"
The "tools" you're referring to are primarily Geofence Warrants and Cell Tower Dumps, which the FBI has refined significantly since the 2020 unrest and January 6th.

Geofencing: The FBI can serve a warrant to Google or Apple for a "reverse location search." They draw a "fence" around the Brighton Park shooting site and demand the identity of every device that was inside that boundary during the 20 minutes leading up to the shooting.

Tower Dumps: They can see which phones "pinged" the same series of towers. If 10 cars traveled from a central activist hub in Little Village to the shooting site in a "convoy" pattern, the tower data proves they were moving together.

Fog Data Science: This is a controversial tool used by federal agencies that buys "anonymized" location data from thousands of apps (weather, games, maps). The FBI can use this to track the historical movements of "Device X" to see if it frequently visits "Activist Headquarters Y," establishing a long-term association.

2. Conspiracy vs. Civil Rights: The "Dual Truth"
You are describing a "dual truth" scenario that often plays out in federal court:

The Conspiracy Truth: If the FBI pulls Signal or Telegram logs (often by seizing the phone of one participant) and finds a message saying, "Convoy at 4:00 AM to block the transport at 5th and Main," they have a Conspiracy to Interfere with a Federal Officer (18 U.S.C. § 372). It doesn't matter if the protesters were peaceful; the agreement to block the officer is the crime.

The Civil Rights Truth: Simultaneously, if the agent yells a slur and shoots a woman who was sitting still (as the Martinez video suggests), that agent may have committed a Civil Rights Violation (18 U.S.C. § 242).

The "Legal Trap": In the government's eyes, the conspiracy often "cancels out" the civil rights claim. They argue that because the activists were part of an illegal conspiracy to block the agents, the agents were in a "high-threat, hostile environment" where their use of force was "objectively reasonable," even if it looked aggressive on tape."

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Dear Supreme Leader soon be leading from Russia?

[DDHarriman]

Why would someone as prominent as Doc Rivers be this mindblowingly stupid?

Milwaukee Bucks HC Doc Rivers:
"What happened in Minnesota was straight up murder. This lady was probably trying to go home."

"We're attacking brown people."

---
Every single one of you dipshit lying Leftists should feel ashamed. Look at how stupid your lies are making this POC look?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Uvalde cop on trial for failing to intervene in the shooting. Apparently it's not clear that cops have a duty to intervene, but IMO the law should be changed to make it clear that they do.

[ducksalad]

Agree with the idea, but it would be hard to set a clear standard. A cop should be willing to more risks than the average person off the street, but not to charge in against suicidal odds.

[DDHarriman]

https://x.com/i/status/2010037103665787019

Video of the 3 minutes of Good blocking the road and dancing to her horn blasts before ICE agents pull close.

Will it sway anyone or will they continue to insist alternative facts?

[Life of Brian]

And that video puts together some of the broader pieces of the puzzle. At 2:30 you can see her parked smack in the middle of the road, and one vehicle goes around her on the left and one on the right. When the camera pans back around 2:45 you see the one that tried to go around on the right is the stuck ICE vehicle we've seen in all the other videos, and she's backed up to flank it. The ICE pickup shows up shortly after.

[David Nieporent]

That video is informative, as I was wondering what happened before the shooting. But not sure how you concluded the vehicle that went on the right is stuck — there's nothing there that looks likely to have caused that — as opposed to stopping there to box her in. In any case, it shows what the shorter videos hinted at but did not show: while she was indeed stopped in the middle of the road, she was not blocking it. A whole bunch of vehicles went around her. (We saw her waving some of them by in the shorter videos.) And then the ICE pickup truck came up to her, and instead of just going by like everyone else, the feds driving it decided to initiate a confrontation to prove how big their dicks were.

[Armchair]

"while she was indeed stopped in the middle of the road, "

Why was she stopped in the middle of the road?

[Josh R]

As I understand it, she was part a whistle alert system to tell neighbors that ICE is present.

[MarkJawz]

Which as far as I'm concerned is an act of treason.

[Josh R]

The "treason" part is the message, which is speech protected by the First Amendment.

[Josh R]

The video does seem to confirm they were not blocking ICE's ability to do their job. Instead, they were breaking traffic laws and perhaps content neutral noise-related laws. What do you do about those violations? You calmly approach the two of them and tell them to desist or face arrest. You don't come running out of your truck screaming "get out the car, get out of the fucking car" and then grab the door handle or reach inside the window.

And all of the above assumes ICE has jurisdiction. If they don't, then they should contact the local police.

[DDHarriman]

If she's blocking the road while letting everyone pass unfettered then why is she blocking the road?

[Josh R]

To get attention to her ICE alert.

[Josh R]

What alternative facts?

[Bunny495]

My first thought was why did the video stop when it did. Knowing what I know now it seems like the tree is blocking the line of sight to where Ross was until the last minute and as soon as the shots are fired the video stops. I am convinced that was due to editing and would provide a better angle than anything else I have seen so far to confirm or deny Ross was hit/grazed/missed entirely by the car. I did notice several "bystanders" on the sidewalk by Good's car along with a lot of parked cars starting up and leaving. I am not sure just how to describe the scene, but choke point comes to mind. It would quite easy for Good and another vehicle to block the road entirely. I am in total agreement that given the history of ICE Watch actions the ICE agents had every reason to be on high alert. Years ago I was on a jury where one of the facts in the case was a vehicle was slowly driving down the road (like five miles an hour) beating on the side of his car door with a flat hand and interacting with pedestrians (trying to pick up a prostitute) at twelve o'clock high noon. The DA threw the book at him but the judge ordered a psyche evaluation before sentencing. I would never try and diagnose Good's mental state but I am convinced if she acted this way with no ICE involvement LEOs would be called and her sanity questioned. While I don't have any real proof to me the choices are Good was involved in a technical conspiracy to harass or obstruct ice or in the alternative she has shit for brains.

[MarkJawz]

At its core, the "Abolish ICE" people are really saying that they think every mestizo, Somali, and other third worlder is entitled to U.S. citizenship.

They can claim otherwise, but their claims will never stand up to any logical scrutiny.