Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[not guilty]

Senator Mark Kelly has sued Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and others arising out of the Secretary's issuance of a “Secretarial Letter of Censure” and his initiation of proceedings to “reconsider” — that is, to reduce — the rank (or “grade”) and pay at which Senator Kelly retired nearly fifteen years ago, in retaliation for the Senator's criticisms of the Trump Administration’s deployment of troops and the National Guard; military strikes; the conduct of senior defense officials; and the legal obligations of service members. Secretary Hegseth’s letter also threatened “criminal prosecution or further administrative action” if Senator Kelly continues to make similar statements. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365/gov.uscourts.dcd.288365.1.0.pdf

Good for him!!

[Krayt]

They're just doing what has been done to them for years: play by the rules, make facetious claims that technically, maybe, dot all the t's. See also investigating the head of the Fed so they can claim proper cause for termination.

It's your world. It's awful. It's raw power manipulation. Your world! But that's how it's done. As it was done unto them, so shall it be returned a thousand fold.

Or something. I'm not justifying, just explaining. Crocodile tears.

:popcorn-emoji:

Sad popcorn emoji.

[Commenter_XY]

I have heard it more simply: Payback is a bitch.

Buckle up, b/c they are just getting started....thirty-five (yes 35) more months of payback. And then potentially 48 more months after 2028.

The caterwauling by the Left is amusing. Cry harder, we need the entertainment.

[Kazinski]

I surprised myself how emotional I felt Rodgers last few minutes in in the league on MNF tonight. I've always been a fan because I spent some of my formative years in Chico, including my first trip to jail.

He is absolutely indisputably one of the top 5 QBs in NFL history, whether counting stats, or ratings like TD/Int or Int%, or just looking at his body of work.

He was at his best as good as it it got, and I have never been a Packer fan.

[Martinned]

Today is my first day back at work after my Christmas break. Before I go do my actual job, let me just check whether I missed anything. (Big picture, I mean.)

As far as I can tell, it is still the view of the US Regime that it can kill whoever it likes whenever it likes wherever it likes, be it foreign or domestic, for good reason, bad reason, or no reason whatsoever, and that the only limit is Trump's personal morality. Does that about sum it up?

And as far as I can tell from this blog and from the Conspirators' socials, most people on this blog think that's perfectly legal and normal, while some Conspirators have suddenly gotten really excited about Mamdani, who is clearly a much bigger threat to US liberty than Trump. Does that about sum it up?

[Commenter_XY]

Go back on holiday, Eurotrash.

[Kazinski]

I am glad you finally understand, I have tried to explain it a few times, unsuccessfully.

I hate to agree with Not Guilty, because we seldom agree on specifics, but if you want to know what the center of American opinion is on any specific issue, the consult Clint Eastwood's tour we force Unforgiven*:

Little Bill Daggett(Europe and almost everyone else): You'd be William Munny out of Missouri. Killer of women and children.

Will Munny(America): That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill (whoever I'm pissed off at at the moment, right now its the mullahs) , for what you did to Ned (I don't know who Ned was, but obviously someone or something I cared about).

The Schofield Kid(Mike Pence): [after killing a man for the first time] It don't seem real... how he ain't gonna never breathe again, ever... how he's dead. And the other one too. All on account of pulling a trigger.
Will Munny(America): It's a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he's got and all he's ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.

* Gene Hackman stole the movie from Clint, but my favourite character was the European Richard Harris.

[DDHarriman]

If you're White in Europe, prepare for the draft.

If not, prepare to rape White women and children - or continue to rape White women or children with State support If you've already started.

[not guilty]

In the last comment thread I offered my thoughts on whether ICE agent Jonanthan Ross should be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 242 for deprivation of rights under color of law arising out of his fatal shooting of Renee Ncole Good, once the Trump whores at the Department of Justice leave office. My comments yesterday focused on deprivation of Ms. Good's Fifth amendment procedural due process right in regard to being deprived of life and, to the extent that she may have committed any federal crime, abridgement of her Sixth Amendment rights.

Upon further reflection, it appears to me that there is a straight up Fourth Amendment deprivation for employment of excessive force against Ms. Good, even if there was probable cause to believe that she was subject to arrest.

SCOTUS opined in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989):

Where, as here, the excessive force claim arises in the context of an arrest or investigatory stop of a free citizen, it is most properly characterized as one invoking the protections of the Fourth Amendment, which guarantees citizens the right "to be secure in their persons . . . against unreasonable . . . seizures" of the person. This much is clear from our decision in Tennessee v. Garner, [471 U. S. 1 (1985).] In Garner, we addressed a claim that the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing suspect who did not appear to be armed or otherwise dangerous violated the suspect's constitutional rights, notwithstanding the existence of probable cause to arrest.

. . . Today we make explicit what was implicit in Garner's analysis, and hold that all claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force -- deadly or not -- in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other "seizure" of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its "reasonableness" standard, rather than under a "substantive due process" approach.

490 at 394-395 [ellipses in original.] The Court elaborated:

As in other Fourth Amendment contexts, however, the "reasonableness" inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are "objectively reasonable" in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation. See Scott v. United States, 436 U. S. 128, 436 U. S. 137-139 (1978); see also Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. [1,] 21 [(1968)] (in analyzing the reasonableness of a particular search or seizure, "it is imperative that the facts be judged against an objective standard"). An officer's evil intentions will not make a Fourth Amendment violation out of an objectively reasonable use of force; nor will an officer's good intentions make an objectively unreasonable use of force constitutional. See Scott v. United States, supra, at 436 U.S. 138, citing United States v. Robinson, 414 U.S. 218 (1973).

490 at 397.

"[P]roper application [of the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard] requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight." Id., at 396.

Jonathan Ross was employed by the Department of Homeland Security, not by the Justice Department. As it happens, however, the DOJ has promulgated guidelines, based on Graham v. Connor, supra, applicable to this kind of situation. In that these guidelines represent the considered judgment of law enforcement professionals -- whose job it is to think of such things for the benefit of law enforcement officers in general -- as to how the Graham standard of reasonableness should apply, the Department of Justice Policy On Use Of Force has some evidentiary value as to what is or is not reasonable.

Section 1-16.200 states in part regarding the use of deadly force:

A. Deadly Force

Law enforcement and correctional officers of the Department of Justice may use deadly force only when necessary, that is, when the officer has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent danger of death or serious physical injury to the officer or to another person.

Deadly force may not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.

Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

If feasible and if to do so would not increase the danger to the officer or others, a verbal warning to submit to the authority of the officer shall be given prior to the use of deadly force.

https://www.justice.gov/jm/1-16000-department-justice-policy-use-force

Criminal prosecutions of law enforcement officers under 18 U.S.C. § 242 are notoriously hard to win. A federal grand jury's consideration of the above quoted provisions of the DOJ Justice Manual is fair game, however, in determining the existence vel non of probable cause to indict Mr. Ross.

[Commenter_XY]

NG, prosecution of Fed ICE LEOs doing their jobs isn't going to happen. Especially when AWFL Ice Warriors get a really bad idea to weaponize their vehicles and strike the LEOs with their vehicles.

The only thing that will happen here is more AWFLs will claim Darwin Awards from their rank stupidity; I wish this were not so, but there will be more. Net Net: You do not impede, obstruct or threaten an LEO performing their job duties. Save it for the judge.

BTW, is Rebecca Good in legal trouble? She is an accomplice.

[DDHarriman]

She hit him with her two ton deadly weapon. He sustained injury. You have to pretend that didn't happen.

I get that you're a hyperpastisan and your legal hot takes are reddit-tier garbage, but still cherry picking is for losers.

[DDHarriman]

You bolded all around the important part.

[Malika la Maize]

“She hit him with her two ton deadly weapon.”

Ran over him!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why not cite the DHS policy, which does not have the part about moving out of the path of the vehicle, and says among other things:

2. A DHS LEO may use deadly force only when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.
a. Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.

He's arguing that he was defending against a serious threat against himself and the officer who opened the door, and Graham, as you cited, cautions against holding cops accountable for split-second decisions (a proposition I disagree with, but it's the law.)

[TwelveInchPianist]

As the caselaw says, detached reflection can't be demanded in the face of an oncoming Honda Pilot.

[Brett Bellmore]

Followed up by, "Moreover if the last shot was intentional and may seem to have been unnecessary when considered in cold blood, the defendant would not necessarily lose his immunity if it followed close upon the others while the heat of the conflict was on, and if the defendant believed that he was fighting for his life."

[dwb68]

The labor market is much softer than the numbers say (so say actual job applicants). The polls are greatly understating Democratic generic ballot. Congressional Republicans should prepare to be in the minority and not by a little bit.

[Malika la Maize]

That’s exactly what has happened in the hours and days since an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Good on the streets of Minneapolis on Wednesday.

Instantly, the administration’s narrative locked in. In a Truth Social post published mere hours after Good’s death, Trump said that at Good “violently, willfully, and viciously ran over the ICE Officer, who seems to have shot her in self defense.” He said that it was “hard to believe” that the ICE agent (who was recorded walking around after the incident, apparently unharmed) was alive…

We simply cannot and should not prejudge the agent’s case — if it even becomes a case.

But that brings us back to this administration’s malice and recklessness. There is zero indication that it intends to conduct a rigorous investigation. All of its public energy is directed toward demonizing Good and defending the agent. Even worse, the federal government has been taking steps to impede the state of Minnesota’s investigation of the shooting.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/opinion/renee-good-trump-ice-minneapolis.html

[TwelveInchPianist]

Maybe Congress can take the opportunity to pass some sort of federal analogue to 1983, hopefully ditching QI.