Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[bloocow2]

https://www.avclub.com/taskmaster-dream-american-contestants-conan-o-brien

This would absolutely rule if it actually happened. Conan would be a great fit for Taskmaster.

[Frank Drackman]

"Rule"??
1977 called, wants their "Rule" back.
Last time I heard someone actually say something "Ruled" was Kevin Spacey in "Amurican Beauty" (DreamWorks 1999) when he buys the 1970 Pontiac Formula he's always wanted and says "I Rule!!"
but I think even then Sam Mendes meant it ironically, showing just how sad and pathetic Lester Burnham's life had become.
I've always found British TV like British Food and British Cars, Overrated and more trouble than it's worth.

Frank

[bloocow2]

I can't believe you actually spent time writing that.

[Frank Drackman]

and you spent time responding, you slow down to look at traffic accidents don't you?

[Malika la Maize]

Conan is an American treasure. His Mark Twain Prize ceremony, which I think might still be on Netflix, was great.

[Frank Drackman]

OK, he'll get me to grin once in a while (while the Zapruder Film gets peals of laughter) but he looks like Bruce Jenner just before he "Came Out", seriously, that nose gets smaller and smaller every year, he's like a Bizarro Pinocchio. He's not really a comedian though (sort of like Joe Rogan) like Louis CK, the Diceman, or Dave Chappelle.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

The Diceman wasn’t even like a comedian, but was good in that one Woody Allen movie.,

[not guilty]

Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen are charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute makes it illegal for two or more people to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

The United States District Court has denied the government's application for a detention hearing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689.22.0.pdf

The affidavit of complaint reportedly remains under seal, which I surmise indicates that other persons, who are not yet in custody, are charged as co-conspirators. The Court's January 23, 2026 order recites that:

The affidavit supporting the complaint specifically identifies the right as the free exercise of religion at a place of religious worship. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. The affidavit details that on the morning of Sunday, January 18, 2026, at approximately 10:30 a.m., “a group of approximately 30-40 agitators, working together in a coordinated manner” entered a church in St. Paul during a religious service and engaged in conduct that “disrupted the religious service and intimidated, harassed, oppressed, and terrorized the parishioners, including young children, and caused the service to be cut short and forced parishioners to flee the church out of a side door, which resulted in one female victim falling and suffering an injury.” Id. at 2–3.

Remarkable absent from that summary is any averment that the accused persons were acting under color of law or that they employed force or the threat of force or that their conduct included physical obstruction.

I remain puzzled as to what federal rights the government claims to be at issue as the alleged object of the conspiracy. In order to satisfy the Due Process requirement of fair warning, prosecution under §§ 241 or 242 requires that the targeted federal right(s) have been identified at some level of specificity comparable to the civil litigation requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (regarding individual capacity damages liability) that the right at issue be "clearly established" by the statute itself or by judicial decisions concerning such right(s). United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-271 (1997).

As I have commented before, the parishioners of course have a First Amendment right not to be disturbed in their worship service by the government. They have a statutory right not to be disturbed by private persons by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

Do those federal rights extend to freedom from private persons entering a building and verbally disrupting a worship service? (Separately from state law prohibitions against criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.?) I could be persuaded of that, but at this point I am not sure.

[not guilty]

I'm sorry for my formatting error. The comment should read as follows:

Nekima Valdez Levy-Armstrong and Chauntyll Louisa Allen are charged by criminal complaint with conspiracy against rights in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 241. That statute makes it illegal for two or more people to “conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person” in the “free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States.”

The United States District Court has denied the government's application for a detention hearing. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689/gov.uscourts.mnd.230689.22.0.pdf

The affidavit of complaint reportedly remains under seal, which I surmise indicates that other persons, who are not yet in custody, are charged as co-conspirators. The Court's January 23, 2026 order recites that:

The affidavit supporting the complaint specifically identifies the right as the free exercise of religion at a place of religious worship. ECF No. 1-1 at 2. The affidavit details that on the morning of Sunday, January 18, 2026, at approximately 10:30 a.m., “a group of approximately 30-40 agitators, working together in a coordinated manner” entered a church in St. Paul during a religious service and engaged in conduct that “disrupted the religious service and intimidated, harassed, oppressed, and terrorized the parishioners, including young children, and caused the service to be cut short and forced parishioners to flee the church out of a side door, which resulted in one female victim falling and suffering an injury.” Id. at 2–3.

Remarkably absent from that summary is any averment that the accused persons were acting under color of law or that they employed force or the threat of force or that their conduct included physical obstruction.

I remain puzzled as to what federal rights the government claims to be at issue as the alleged object of the conspiracy. In order to satisfy the Due Process requirement of fair warning, prosecution under §§ 241 or 242 requires that the targeted federal right(s) have been identified at some level of specificity comparable to the civil litigation requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (regarding individual capacity damages liability) that the right at issue be "clearly established" by the statute itself or by judicial decisions concerning such right(s). United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259, 270-271 (1997).

As I have commented before, the parishioners of course have a First Amendment right not to be disturbed in their worship service by the government. They have a statutory right not to be disturbed by private persons by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b). The church and its members have a statutory right to be free of private persons' intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempts to do so, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

Do those federal rights extend to freedom from private persons entering a building and verbally disrupting a worship service? (Separately from state law prohibitions against criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, etc.?) I could be persuaded of that, but at this point I am not sure.

[Dr. Ed 2]

You either didn’t quote the statute correctly, or somehow a fabricating a condition it doesn’t specify. Please explain where either color of law or battery are a necessary prerequisite to the interfere, oppress and all that other stuff.

Furthermore, isn’t there something along the lines of common sense for example? Where is the sign that says I can’t stand in the middle of a railroad track in the face of an oncoming train.

Are you seriously arguing? They didn’t know they were disrupting a religious service? The building had “church” painted on the side of it I presume.

Conversely, a couple decades ago the Feds got a conviction for rolling a pig’s head into a mosque in Lewiston Maine. Not for littering, but for disrupting the mosque, memory is hate crime. Exactly how is that different?

Lewiston still rural enough for there could be farming there, pigs, heads are sometimes discarded as part of the butchering process, where was the warning to these farm boys that rolling a head into the mosque was verboten?

[not guilty]

Learn to read, Dr. Ed. 2. I quoted Judge Provinzino's order, and I did not anywhere suggest that "either color of law or battery are a necessary prerequisite to the interfere, oppress and all that other stuff" as to 18 U.S.C. § 241.

A federal right being abridged as the conspiratorial target is, however, an essential element of the charged statute. First Amendment rights exist vis-a-vis federal and state governments -- not as to the actions of omissions of private actors.

The federal statutes that I cited do include the components I cited as essential elements -- oppression or interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction as to 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(2), intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting by force or threat of force to do so, in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce as to 18 U.S.C. § 247(a) and (b), and intentionally defacing, damaging, or destroying any religious real property or attempting to do so, because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with that religious property, or attempting to do so, as to 18 U.S.C. § 247(c).

What has been reported of the accused persons' conduct in Cities Church in St. Paul has not involved their acting under color of law. It has not involved oppression or interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction. It has not involved an effect upon interstate or foreign commerce. It has not involved targeting because of the race, color, or ethnic characteristics of any individual associated with the religious property, nor attempting to do so.

Like it or not, statutes matter. In order to prosecute someone for a federal crime, "The legislative authority of the Union must first make an act a crime, affix a punishment to it, and declare the court that shall have jurisdiction of the offense." United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 32, 34 (1812).

[LexAquilia]

I watched the video with my own eyes.

I watched similar videos but of criminal little grannies who were caught praying to close to an abortion clinic whom Biden and Democrat judges sent to prison for 30 years.

[not guilty]

Disrupting that worship service, even by non-forcible means, was despicable. What happened elsewhere is a separate matter from whether Ms. Levy-Armstrong and Ms. Allen, or anyone else, committed a federal crime.

What specific federal right do you contend that the accused persons conspired to deprive anyone of, LexAquilia?

[Brett Bellmore]

Free exercise of religion, of course.

[not guilty]

Brett, I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.

The right to free exercise of religion is a right that exists vis-a-vis the government. The First Amendment assures that neither the federal government not the states will interfere with religious exercise.

How did Ms. Levy-Armstrong and Ms. Allen conspire to have the government interfere with the Cities Church parishioners' exercise of religion?

If you were a prosecutor, what evidence would you offer that such government interference was the alleged conspirators' objective?

[Brett Bellmore]

Not Guilty, let me explain this for you: Only states can violate the 14th amendment, but we're not talking about the 14th amendment here, we're talking about a statute. And that statute is indeed applicable to private citizens, there's a different statute for government actors.

So you may think that 18 U.S. Code § 241 should only be applicable to government actors, but you'd be wrong.

[LexAquilia]

When is he ever right?

[jb]

Sure, but NG's point is that the statute only criminalizes violating a Constitutional right, and the Constitutional right is freedom from government interference. So how does an individual acting outside the color of law violate that.

Compare that to the FACE act (also cited by NG), which just requires physical obstruction to an abortion clinic or someone trying to practice their religion. I'm kind of confused by why that's not the law being used here.

[Brett Bellmore]

Sure, but his point leaves the statute either with no constitutional application, or totally redundant to the other statute, so if I wants to argue that, I'd like to see him argue it explicitly.

My understanding is that it's not that private individuals can't violate constitutional rights, but instead that such violations are the sort of statutory crimes that states are obligated to penalize in order to not themselves be in violation of the 14th amendment.

"I'm kind of confused by why that's not the law being used here."

Because the federal magistrate judge (Who really should have recused!) rejected the charges.

[not guilty]

"So you may think that 18 U.S. Code § 241 should only be applicable to government actors, but you'd be wrong."

Brett, I don't think that at all. Let me break it down for you.

The relevant portion of § 241 states:

If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same

The gravamen of the statute is conspiracy to deny/obstruct another person's exercise of federal constitutional or statutory rights. The First Amendment secures the right to be free of governmental prohibition of or interference with the free exercise of religion, which originally applied only to the federal government, but since at least 1940 has been applied to the states as well. See, Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

The relevant question here is not whether the conspirators are themselves acting under color of law; it is whether the object of the conspiracy is for persons acting on behalf of the government, state or federal, to prohibit the worshippers' exercise of religion.

What happened at Cities Church in St. Paul this past Sunday is comparable to an unpopular speaker being shouted down in a lecture hall at a private college by protesters. That would not be a violation of the speaker's First Amendment right of free speech, because the shouters do not act under color of law.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Disrupting that worship service, even by non-forcible means, was despicable.

Chris Geidner discusses this matter (with links), noting in part:

As that news spread, Attorney General Pam Bondi began live-tweeting arrests of Minnesota activists involved in a protest at a Minnesota church where one of the pastors is the acting head of the Minnesota ICE field office — and the man who submitted a declaration defending ICE’s tactics in Minnesota in litigation before U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez alleging that the Trump administration has been violating the First and Fourth Amendment rights of protesters in the Twin Cities.

https://substack.com/inbox/post/185584447

A person defends her involvement:

https://www.democracynow.org/2026/1/21/nekima_levy_armstrong_minneapolis_ice_protest

We participated in the first part of the service, and the pastor prayed during the service, “Dear God, please chasten us and help us to get our house in order.” So, when he was done praying, I stood up, and I said, “Excuse me, Pastor, you just prayed this particular prayer.” And he said, “Correct.” And I said, “Well, help me understand: How is David Easterwood a pastor here and also a director of ICE in St. Paul?”

One NPR article linked to the Geidner piece notes:

A prominent civil rights attorney and at least two other people involved in an anti-immigration enforcement protest that disrupted a service at a Minnesota church have been arrested, Trump administration officials said Thursday, even as a judge rebuffed related charges against journalist Don Lemon.

===

If someone thinks ICE is taking part in horrible acts, I understand how the protestors thought themselves justified to act in this fashion. A non-violent verbal act of civil disobedience.

I don't think it is "despicable." I wouldn't necessarily say it was advisable or anything. But with people here saying ICE is involved in "murder," I do understand the acts of the "civil rights attorney and ordained minister Nekima Levy Armstrong."

[David Nieporent]

Disrupting that worship service, even by non-forcible means, was despicable.

To quote (supposedly) Talleyrand, it's worse than a crime: it's a blunder. To quote (supposedly) the person to whom Talleyrand would've been referring, never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake. Between the murder of Renee Good and the home invasion and abuse of Chongly Thao, ICE was very much on the PR defensive. Why would these jackasses serve up this to the administration on a tee?

[Magister]

But it's inevitable that any protest done in Minnesota will hand the Trump administration something they can lie about, like with their initial response to the murder of Renee Good. They'll digitally alter photos of people they arrest; they'll claim the church was stormed and that there was violence. They'll claim they recently arrested people in Minneapolis who were already in prison and released from there directly to ICE custody before the recent ICE enforcement surge, while also claiming that Minnesota Corrections won't cooperate with them.

[David Nieporent]

Of course this administration — and DHS/ICE in particular — lie extensively about everything. But there are lies that are plausible and lies that aren't. The goal of the protesters oughtn't be to sway MAGA; the goal ought to be to sway normal people. Lots of people not buying what Trump is selling about the cases I mentioned; lots of people are buying (and correctly so) the notion that interrupting a church service (whatever the precise characterization — storming, disrupting, etc.) is wrong.

[John F. Carr]

Did the feds get a conviction in the Maine pig head case?

I found the state Attorney General got an anti-anti-Mosque injunction and the accused litterer killed himself the next year while awaiting trial on a state law misdemeanor charge of descrating a place of worship. He claimed a cop told him the pig head would be treated as littering. The cop later denied this. As a general observation, without regard for Maine law, taking legal advice from cops is risky. They do not control prosecution decisions. And the advice was not "it's legal, go ahead, you won't get in trouble."

https://www.maine.gov/ag/news/article.shtml?id=48457
https://www.religionnewsblog.com/18039/brent-matthews

[Riva]

If an abortion facility had been the target of these “protesters” (wonder how many were more rent-a-thugs?) they’d be sitting in jail. Of course, if that were the case, the corrupt Minnesota officials probably have done something instead of cheerleading the harassment. I hesitate to think of the fate of the defendants if this were DC and the date of Jan 6 was mentioned anywhere.

And, as noted before, let’s not forget that democrats who are judges aren’t “judges,” they’re partisan hacks who do the bidding of other democrats.

https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/2014434382455378123

https://x.com/atalarico1970/status/2014444891875553336

You could also ask Boasberg about corrupt hacks. He was the creep who signed the NDOs requested by the thug Smith targeting republicans.

Bonus fun fact: the defendants chanted the fabricated “Hands up. Don’t Shoot” lie favored by the BLM rioters. Probably more of the same (paid?) bad actors.

[Frank Drackman]

Yeah right, and a woman praying outside an Abortatoreum gets sent to Prison. You know if it was guys in MAGA hats disrupting a Mississippi AME Service Merrick Garfield would be charging the Death Penalty.

Frank.

[not guilty]

Frank, when and where has a woman praying outside an Abortatoreum, without more, been sent to prison? Oppression or interference by force or threat of force or by physical obstruction at an abortion facility is an essential element of 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1), just as it is to a house or worship under § 248(a)(2).

I strongly suspect you are getting your information from Otto Yourazz. Please cite a judicial decision that has upheld a criminal conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1) on the meager facts that you describe.

[Frank Drackman]

News Flash, you aren’t Jack Smith(although I’m guessing you have the similar Merkin-esque Facial Hair you think makes you look suave) harassing a jaywalker.
You’re not even Judge Judy, who probably displays more legal gravitas in 23 minutes than you have in your entire career that nobody gives a shit about.
But to humor you I’ll “cite” a case
Look up “Suck Deez v Nutz”

Frank

[not guilty]

IOW, you lack both any particular example and the integrity to admit the lack thereof.

Why am I unsurprised?

[Frank Drackman]

Because you're stupid? I thought you weren't supposed to ask questions you didn't already know the answers to.

[not guilty]

I know that you are stupid. But the point of that maxim is to avoid an unexpected surprise from the witness.

Your stupidity is entirely unsurprising.

In any event, the exception to the maxim is when the answer doesn't matter.

[Frank Drackman]

You can deny it, because it's AlGores Internets (I admit, I like his Retro Crew Cut) but I nailed it on your Facial Hair, didn't I?
Unlike VP JD, who without the Beard has the pudgy face he had as a pudgy kid, Smith is actually a good looking guy (no Homo, some guys are good looking (Brad Pitt), some aren't (Jerry Nadler)) without the facial hair, but with it?? Just looks like every guy who used to show up with a 12 Pack and Condoms on "To Catch a Predator".

Frank "Mr. Smith? please have a Seat"

[Riva]

You f’ing lying hack Not Guilty. Across the world, people have been arrested on multiple occasions for praying outside abortion facilities allegedly in violation of some absurd “buffer zone” or “safe zone” laws. (That would be arrested and taken into custody) Many are harassed in the UK if the police even think they look like they’re praying. Just to take one US example (I could write book there are so many many cases; someone probably has), Matthew Connolly (a pro life monk) was arrested (just so you know, that’s taken into custody where they hold you in a cage) in 2022 in Southfield, Michigan while peacefully praying with a rosary in a common hallway area of a building where an abortion clinic operates; he was arrested and charged with misdemeanors such as “interference with a business” and an ordinance against causing “annoyance,” fined, and sentenced to 90 days in jail after refusing probation terms restricting pro‑life activity near clinics.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It got so bad in Massachusetts that the Supreme Court actually defined a limit to what a buffer zone could be Coakley versus somebody if I’m remember correctly.

So you have the Supreme Court conceding that merely being outside a protected venue is grounds for incarceration while you are alleging that being inside it isn’t?

[David Nieporent]

"Merely being outside" something is not "grounds for incarceration." Violating a criminal law is.

[David Nieporent]

Bot programmed to bring up things that supposedly happened in England, which of course has entirely different laws, when the topic is the U.S. And of course although bot claims that there are "so many many cases," not even one was cited.

Matthew Connolly was not arrested or prosecuted for praying outside an abortion clinic. Matthew Connolly was arrested for trespassing on private property after being asked by the property owner to leave. He was charged with that as well as resisting/obstruction, and interfering with a business. None of those turned on him "praying," and of course none of that was a federal prosecution of anything.

[Riva]

I guess I could remind the repulsive rent-a-troll of the broad nature of the question posed ("when and where has a woman praying outside an Abortatoreum, without more, been sent to prison?") and that I provided examples of just such "when" and "where's." I could also point out that Michael Connolly was arrested while peacefully praying with a rosary in a common hallway area of a building where an abortion clinic operates, and that he endured incarceration ONLY BECAUSE he refused not to bow into oppressive orders that would have prevented him from praying near any abortion facility in the future. But that would be pointless because responding to a repulsive rent-a-troll would be like responding to a spam email expecting monetary return.

It can't be repeated enough. I know they're bastards, but do they have to be such stupid bastards?

[not guilty]

Riva, I also challenged Frank to cite a judicial decision that has upheld a criminal conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 248(a)(1) on the facts that he described.

To no one's surprise, neither he nor you can do so.

[Riva]

Are those the rules here? Am I obliged to answer to respond to every question you raise in your sealioning? Is that what you do when questions are asked? Is that what the rent-a-trolls do? I note just you ignored my responses above and moved onto something else.

[not guilty]

No, Riva. You have mastered the art of running away like a scalded dog when I ask a question that you are unable to answer.

[Kazinski]

Looks like there is some movement, finally in the Ukraine Russia front.

The first direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in 4 years, have started in the middle east, BBC reports:

"Russian, Ukrainian and US negotiators are meeting in Abu Dhabi today for the first trilateral talks since Russia's full-scale invasion in February 2022 - here's what we know

These talks are crunch time for Ukraine and a chance to see whether Moscow is really serious about peace or just playing games, our correspondent writes from Kyiv

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky says the talks are "a step - hopefully towards ending the war", adding the meeting will focus on the status of Ukraine's eastern Donbas region"

https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cz6yyy07wnjt

The pressure has started to mount on Russia with a couple of developments in the past two weeks.

- France seized a Russian shadow fleet tanker in the Mediterranean "On January 22-23, 2026, the French Navy intercepted and seized the oil tanker Grinch in the Mediterranean Sea, between Spain and Morocco, for suspected violations of international sanctions against Russia. " -Google AI summary

-- "Trump has 'greenlit' sanctions bill punishing Russia for war in Ukraine, Sen. Graham says" https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-has-greenlit-sanctions-bill-punishing-russia-for-war-in-ukraine-sen-graham-says

- Russia is showing signs of being squeezed economically "Russia is increasing its standard Value Added Tax (VAT) rate from 20% to 22%, effective January 1, 2026, to fund rising military costs and cover budget deficits. The hike applies to most goods and services, while a 10% reduced rate remains for essential, social, and children’s products.". - Google AI summary

The Graham bill implants mandatory 500% tariffs on countries that are buying Russian oil, and hopefully won't have to be implemented but likely will get enough support to pass if it is needed. Democrats have been to vocal about Ukraine support to chicken out at effective sanctions targeting Russia.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I know it’s only oil tankers now, but I’ll bet the French taking that tanker got their attention. It wouldn’t be a logical leap for European countries to go from taking tankers to taking any Russian ship, or any ship bringing a cargo to or from Russia.

[Frank Drackman]

As someone who treats every situation as a target to be shot or nuked (Castration Anxiety much?) I’m surprised you don’t consider that the Roosh-uns also have ships (many of which travel submerged) that can “take”(or sink) Ships they deem objectionable.

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

That is why I considered the French taking a Russian oik tanker so significant.

Of course, what is the status of the Russian Navy at this point?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably what the Captain of KAL 007 said in 1983, “let’s take this short cut over Sakhalin, what are the Roosh-uns going to do? Scramble some fighters and shoot us down? It would be an international incident!”Anyway, their pilots hardly even get any flight time!
In fact it’s actually good that Idiots like you keep underestimating them, when Ships start mysteriously sinking how are you going to accuse them?

[Dr. Ed 2]

SOSUS

I don’t believe a whale can fart without the USN knowing about it.

And 1983 was a very different time. I don’t know if you are aware of just how few Russian subs are actually seaworthy anymore.

Russia is nothing without its nukes, and if you know anything about nukes, you don’t understand the question of how many nukes built in the 80s will still go bang now.

[Bunny495]

Just one nuke can ruin your whole day.

[Frank Drackman]

Maybe if they'd been looking out for Arabs in boats instead of listening for Flatulent Whales the USS Cole wouldn't have gotten bombed.
And No, I'm not aware how many Russian Submarines are "Actually" Seaworthy, is that the same as "Really" Seaworthy or "Mostly" Seaworthy, or "Kind of" Seaworthy.
And I'm not sure what the Shelf life of Plutonium is, let me go check mine,
Nope, no "Expiration Date" I think it's still good.

But Seriously Ed, I appreciate your contributions, you "actually" make me look sensible.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Looks like there is some movement, finally in the Ukraine Russia front.

June 24, 2023. Speech to the Faith and Freedom Coalition in Washington, DC.

“Before I even arrive at the Oval Office, I will have the horrible war between Russia and Ukraine totally settled. I’ll have it done in 24 hours. I say that, and I would do that. That’s easy compared to some of the things – I’d get that done in 24 hours.

[Frank Drackman]

Unlike Common-Law Harris who would have us in WW3, all for some Piss-Ant Eastern European Country most people still probably couldn't find on a map and who's major Export is (admittedly Hot) Male Order Brides. (If they were around in 1991, how different my Life would have gone, not saying "better" just "different")

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Did Harris promise to end it on day one?

[Frank Drackman]

I don't know, her voice was so annoying I've barely ever heard her talk. I think Willie Brown felt the same way.

[ThePublius]

Who cares? Politicians make promises, and they don't or can't keep all of them. So it has been for time immorial. You would never be accused of enumerating the promises he did keep, or the ones that 'your team,' i.e., Biden haven't. Yea, so where's that cancer cure we were repeatedly promised?

[Sarcastr0]

Even this is culty.
Trump's failures make him normal, his successes make him a God among Men, solving problems only he can fix.

8 wars ended!!!!!

[Malika la Maize]

EIGHT PLUS!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Nothing about Biden's promise to cure cancer?

[Malika la Maize]

Whaddabout!

By the way, if you’re going to play that game Trump made that promise over 50 times. Did Biden?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Whaddabout!"

Did I studder? What about Biden's promise to cure cancer?

[Malika la Maize]

No, you just engaged in an irrelevant comment. What about it?

[Nelson]

Biden didn’t claim that curing cancer was easy, nor that he would be the one getting it done, nor that it would happen quickly. Nor, for that matter, that it would happen while he was in office.

[Riva]

I guess the perpetuation and potential escalation of the bloody war is more preferable than someone actually making serious efforts to end the conflict and finally making progress, or something. The epitome of TDS, assuming you're not a rent-a-troll. No accomplishment by the Trump Administration can ever be acknowledged and all supporters of any policy achievements are "cultists."

[Malika la Maize]

It’s been over 365 days his self imposed deadline.

[Nelson]

“ someone actually making serious efforts to end the conflict”

Having Trump offer Russia’s terms isn’t making a serious effort to end the conflict. As long as Russia insists on keeping the land it stole and Trump insists the same, neither is making a serious (or honest) effort.

Russia is the bad guy here. If they want to stop losing thousands of soldiers and millions of dollars in equipment, get the sanctions lifted so their economy can recover, and try to rebuild a shred of reputation and trust in the world, giving back all the territory they stole is the first step.

Ukraine will never surrender their land. Russians will continue to bleed and die, even if the end up occupying Ukraine, until they pull an Afghanistan and leave.

[Malika la Maize]

Promising to end the war in one day was a really stupidly reckless promise, as events have demonstrated.

[David Nieporent]

Who cares? Politicians make promises, and they don't or can't keep all of them. So it has been for time immorial.

First, the cult has marketed Trump as unique among politicians in keeping his promises. Second, the issue here isn't Trump breaking a promise; he didn't get into office and say, "You know, I know I said I'd end this war immediately, but I have much higher priorities than that, so I'm not going to do that." Rather, the issue is Trump making a promise that only a delusional person could ever have thought could be kept.

[Kazinski]

Obviously Biden never promised that, or made any serious effort to end it, or prevent it from happening in the first place.

Or anyone in Europe, or the UN, or the Chinese.

[Krayt]

I weakly endorsed Harris over Trump because I felt rewarding the deliberately-knowing inflation causers was slightly less bad than electing a guy happy with dictator tanks seizing territory in Europe (and laughably using the same reason as Hitler.)

America made its choice, so we only get to see one side of that counterfactual.

The result? "Thanks, Gramps."

Unlike Common-Law Harris who would have us in WW3

This is BS pushed by Putin trolls. Shame on strong men fans who bite. We were easily pushing him back with supply chains. Supply chains we relaxed on. "Thanks, Gramps!"

[Kazinski]

Aimee Bock a convicted fraudster in the Minnesota "Feeding our Future" 250 million dollar Covid Scam is claiming state officials purposely looked the other way and let the scam continue.

Convicted Minnesota fraudster alleges Walz, Ellison were aware of widespread fraud

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/convicted-minnesota-fraudster-alleges-walz-ellison-were-aware-widespread-fraud

Blocks Lawyers are also claiming their is audio of a quid pro quo between Ellison and some of the FOF fraudsters. There was also ready a tape released last year that seems damning, but I don't know whether it goes far enough to be criminal:

"MAN: The only way that we can protect what we have is by inserting ourselves into the political arena. Putting our votes where it needs to be. But most importantly, putting our dollars in the right place. And supporting candidates that will fight to protect our interests.

ELLISON: That's right.

Now, we're getting somewhere, and in the next part of the exchange, the man speaking makes it clear he's not just talking in political abstracts but is talking about giving money directly to Ellison.

MAN: You can only protect our interests when we have your back, and you don't have to worry about who is behind you. "

https://redstate.com/bonchie/2026/01/23/report-audio-exists-of-keith-ellison-speaking-to-somali-fraudsters-being-offered-campaign-donations-n2198440

[Dr. Ed 2]

Hmmmmmm……

At what point would it become entrapment?
I always hear that involving cops and crimes and otherwise would not be committed, why wouldn’t entrapment apply here?

I don’t know what a textbook case of police entrapment would be, but I presume it would be something along the lines of Hey, take this box of drugs, and go sell it. Make yourself some money.

Even without the kickback, at one point would encouraging people to apply for funds and eligible for cons student entrapment?

[not guilty]

Entrapment involves more than government officials merely being aware of the crime, Ed.

The entrapment defense, which, as explicated in Sorrells v. United States, 287 U.S. 435 (1932), and Sherman v. United States, 356 U. S. 369 (1958), prohibits law enforcement officers from instigating criminal acts by otherwise innocent persons in order to lure them to commit crimes and punish them. United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 428-429 (1973).

[Riva]

Minnesota officials enabling and benefiting from the industrial level fraud in their state have essentially “entrapped” themselves.

[David Nieporent]

At what point would it become entrapment?

Never.

I don’t know what a textbook case of police entrapment would be, but I presume it would be something along the lines of Hey, take this box of drugs, and go sell it. Make yourself some money.

For crying out loud, for once in your life could you just stop with "I don't know"? That would not be any sort of case of police entrapment at all. To put it in simplest terms, entrapment requires that the government induce or coerce someone to commit a crime that he or she would have been otherwise unwilling to commit. Neither encouraging the person to commit a crime nor providing the means for the person to do so constitutes entrapment.

[Malika la Maize]

The key here is “what we have” and “our interests.” At the time, what would Ellison have read that as? A fraud ring or an association of whatever the fraudsters were pretending to be.

[jb]

Now, we're getting somewhere, and in the next part of the exchange, the man speaking makes it clear he's not just talking in political abstracts but is talking about giving money directly to Ellison.

MAN: You can only protect our interests when we have your back, and you don't have to worry about who is behind you.

WTF is it with right wing blogs drawing conclusions that just have no relationship with the underlying source material they cite? Like how do you possibly get from that quote the idea that it implies payment directly to someone?

[Kazinski]

The allegation is that Ellison promised to help get the money flowing again for campaign contributions, not direct payments to him or anyone else.

That is illegal, and is what sent Governor Blagojevich to prison, making an explicit offer for an official act for campaign contributions.

I don't know if that is what actually happened but that is what Bock's lawyers are alleging.

[Magister]

Kazinski loves any allegation by criminals against Democratic politicians; he's probably still swooning over that letter from the murderer of a Democratic legislator that claimed Walz was to blame. Curiously this anti-corruption campaign never gets around to Trump's pardons or other grifting.

Also, Blagojevich sought to sell Obama's vacated Senate seat for direct gain, not just campaign contributions.

[jb]

"The allegation is that Ellison promised to help get the money flowing again for campaign contributions, not direct payments to him or anyone else."

Nope. You could actually read the articles that you're posting maybe? From the text you yourself quoted:

"Now, we're getting somewhere, and in the next part of the exchange, the man speaking makes it clear he's not just talking in political abstracts but is talking about giving money directly to Ellison." (my emphasis)

Even if the claim were what you're trying to make now versus what RedState is putting out there, the quote from "Man" does not substantiate that either, though.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s a very small amount of money involved, way too little for me to fight about it, but I just think this is sleazy.

I had a couple of shares of stock that I forgot about and they went to the state of Maine unclaimed property division, which was kind enough to sell them and eventually send me the money.

Now General Mills is sending me a 1099B for “bartering income” — for property which I already owned. This is an addition to the 1099 for the dividends of those stocks.

This strikes me is just plain sleazy…..

[Frank Drackman]

Like Milner in American Graffiti just file the 1099 under “CS”

[Dr. Ed 2]

???

[Frank Drackman]

OK I’ll draw you a diaphragm, Jeez, I think you really are a teacher.
You remember “American Grafitit”? It’s only one of the semen-al movies of the last 60 years.
Remember when Milner, in his Deuce Coupe gets pulled over by Officer Holstein and issued a ticket for the bumper being too low? Milner tells his passenger (a very nubile Makenzie Phillips) to file the ticket under “CS”
“CS? What’s that mean?” She asks with the same stupid voice I imagine you have.
“Chicken Shit, that’s all it is”Milner replies as we see a Glove compartment filled with crumpled up tickets
I do the same with all the junk mail the AMA sends trying to get me to join (I’d sooner join Ham-Ass)

Frank

[Ridgeway]

So we can add "Capital Gains Tax" to the topics Ed knows nothing about.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Don’t you have to have a capital gain first?

[Ridgeway]

You sold stock (or had the state do it on your behalf). You got the proceeds. You have a capital gain in an amount equal to those proceeds minus your basis in the stock.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Meaning the amount you bought it for.

[bernard11]

Your story makes no sense.

Why is General Mills sending you a 1099. A 1099 for Income on stock sales is normally sent by the broker. Was it General Mills stock that you held outside of any brokerage account, in which case I guess it could come from them.

Did you have a gain on the sale? If so why shouldn't that be taxable?

[Magister]

I think by "General Mills" Dr. Ed 2 means Janet Mills, previously the Attorney General of Maine and now the Governor, and whose title was never properly "General" but certainly is not now. (This weirdness of Dr. Ed 2 was the basis for a joke.) Probably it was the state who sold the stocks and sent the 1099, and attributing the latter to the governor is likely just Dr. Ed 2 being stupid and/or partisan rather than synecdoche.

[bernard11]

I didn't think of that, but it sounds plausible.

Though why Ed doesn't think he should pay taxes on capital gains is unclear to me. (Well, unless the reason he thinks that is because he doesn't understand the tax laws.)

[John F. Carr]

If you disagree with your tax documents you can explain to the IRS. I know somebody who zeroed out what she considered a duplicate W-2 and two years later the auditors still haven't come calling.

[Malika la Maize]

Ex-Reason writer Radley Balko:

I have been covering policing for more than 20 years and have read and parsed a lot of these statements. The Department of Homeland Security’s response after the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Good in Minneapolis this month is something else entirely.

For all their flaws, typical communications from police officials usually include a modicum of solemnity. There are assurances that there will be a fair and impartial investigation, even if those investigations too often turn out to be neither. There’s at least the acknowledgment that to take a human life is a profound and serious thing.

The Trump administration’s response to Ms. Good’s death made no such concessions. There were no promises of an impartial investigation. There was no regret or remorse. There was little empathy for her family — for her parents, her partner or the children she left behind. From the moment the world learned about her death, the administration pronounced the shooting not only justified but an act of heroism worthy of praise and celebration.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/opinion/ice-shooting-renee-good.html?unlocked_article_code=1.GFA.T4QU.bxs8VDW8I0Rm&smid=url-share

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I think heroism is a bit of a stretch here, just as it was for Lieutenant Byrd, who killed Ashley Babbitt. At best it was technically just barely within the bounds of legally permissible, because those bounds are located to give cops entirely unreasonable freedom to shoot people.

Just like Babbitt, I'd expect to be shot if I ever did anything so stupidly reckless, but he hardly HAD to shoot her. In a better world he'd just have concentrated on dodging, and then she'd have been alive to face vehicular assault charges.

I do feel sorry for her parents, her children. It's sad even when an idiot dies. I don't feel sorry for her partner, because her partner egged her on to do it, as she realized too late.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not an expert in these matters. She seemed more irrational (scared) than murderous and I can understand his in-the-moment reaction. A sad mess.

My problem was Trump and others in the administration immediately pre-judging the situation and then not engaging in a thorough investigation. That *has* to be a thing whenever there’s LEO use of lethal force.

[Mr. Bumble]

Truth and honesty seem to be missing from both sides of the story.

[Bwaaah]

There's life, and the stories we tell of it, always leaving out all but our chosen takeaways, and the infinite details that words don't/can't capture. Here's a universal insipid headline:

"Life: Everything You Need to Know"

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't think she really wanted to run him over. OTOH, I don't think she made much effort to NOT run him over. I keep coming back to this: You do NOT put your car into drive under such circumstances! She was looking right at him, in front of her car, when she pressed the pedal down!

What responsible driver does that?

[Malika la Maize]

A frightened one?

Again, I’m not saying the shooting wasn’t justified, but she struck me as acting like a scared person does: irrationally. That still doesn’t mean the case should have been prejudged by the Executive branch and not subject to a full investigation.

[Brett Bellmore]

She was freaking grinning mere seconds earlier, if she was frightened, she went from cocky to frightened in record time.

Normal people understand that you don't try to drive off while interacting with police. But, that's the problem, isn't it? She'd been propagandized to not regard ICE as the police they very much are.

[Malika la Maize]

People react to fear in lots of ways Brett. Have you never heard of nervous laughter, for example?
Lots of normal people do weird things in a panic.

[Mr. Bumble]

Like try to run over a LEO?

[Malika la Maize]

Even Brett doesn’t think she *was trying* to run over a LEO. Try again.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, I think it was depraved indifference, which is not much better.

[David Nieporent]

Driving a car at parking lot speeds is not "depraved indifference" to anything.

[TwelveInchPianist]

That sure is a comment where the devil is in the details.

[Brett Bellmore]

It is when you know there's somebody in front of your car.

[David Nieporent]

It is when you know there's somebody in front of your car.

No, it isn't. Well, maybe if it's a small child in front of your car.

Again: drive through a WalMart lot. There will be people walking to and from their cars into the store. Some of those people will be crossing in front of you as you drive down the aisle. The odds of you killing or seriously injuring them while driving at 5 mph are… quite low.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Shit, and I'll this time I've been avoiding hitting the gas in Wal-Mart parking lots when some is in front of my car. I guess I don't have to worry about it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Lots of normal people do weird things in a panic."

Unfortunately, sometimes those weird things can cause people to reasonably believe that they are in danger.

[David Nieporent]

She was freaking grinning mere seconds earlier, if she was frightened, she went from cocky to frightened in record time.

I disagree with the claim that she was "looking right at him," but setting that aside, yes, she had to make a split second decision after a bunch of thugs ran up to her car and tried to drag her out. That would've reasonably frightened anyone.

[TwelveInchPianist]

She had at least three minutes to drive away. She was deliberately blocking the road during an ICE operation, apparently as some sort of civil disobedience, what did she think was going to happen?

[David Nieporent]

1) While her car was indeed in the middle of the road, it was blocking a lane, not "blocking the road." Plenty of cars in the longer video drove around her — in fact, she even waved them by. Indeed, there was room to drive around her car on both sides.

2) I of course cannot be certain, but she was probably thinking that she'd express her disdain for ICE, and then either they'd ignore her, or they'd tell her to get out of the way or she'd be arrested, and then she'd drive away.

And, as her wife/partner pointed out to them, if they then decided they wanted to make an example of her and arrest her, they had her ID and could have simply come to her house later.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, that's the position she got propagandized into taking seriously: That ICE are just a bunch of thugs rather than law enforcement.

[David Nieporent]

Supposed libertarian doesn't understand the strong overlap.

[bernard11]

Or the need to have law enforcement act with restraint. Brett's joined Dr. Ed's camp. Jaywalker? Shoot him.

You know, they could have just let her stay there, or politely asked her to move, minus the obscenities. And if she didn't, then arrest her, or give her a ticket, now or later. I mean what was the urgency? What sort of massive, dangerous crime wave were they fighting, anyway?

I guess they were after demonic criminals cleaning houses and putting up drywall without a visa.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She'd been propagandized to not regard ICE as the police they very much are."

Yup. Walz just falsely claimed at his press conference that ICE isn't law enforcement.

As someone on twitter said, people have been led to believe that ICE has no more authority over citizens than a Chippendales dancer in a police suit.

And it's getting people killed.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a stupid strategy, if you don't care about the Renee Goods of the world. Law enforcement actually relies on almost everybody treating them as law enforcement, so that the violence rarely has to be resorted to. Convince enough gullible people to treat them like random cop cosplayers, and you might be able to drive the frequency of that violence up high enough that they can't stomach dealing it out, and give up and go away.

Mind you, governments that react that way don't remain governments much longer, so the odds of the feds actually doing that rather than doubling down and bringing to bear enough force to prevail aren't good. But the resulting butcher bill could be politically useful in the midterms.

[bernard11]

Yes.

Good was clearly part of a conspiracy to get herself killed so as to make ICE look bad. I guess Pretti was in on it too.

Give me a break, Brett.

Somehow, in your crazy world, it's not ICE, but Good's associates who didn't care about her.

[jb]

I assume she thought she could avoid him by steering hard away from him. Or maybe just that he would move, like most people do when a car starts moving towards them.

The whole situation strikes me as a bit sad and unnecessary and dumb from both parties. She didn't need to drive off so recklessly, and he didn't need to shoot at her. As you say, the shooting is colorably defensible (especially since he's a cop and they generally get the benefit of the doubt with these things).

But to loop back to the original post in this thread, it sucks that we have a Presidency that always seeks to put gas on the fire rather than trying to deescalate. I get that everyone knew what Trump was when the MAGAs voting for him, so maybe this is what America asked for. But if you want to know why some people have TDS, this general pattern of making everything worse is the answer.

[Brett Bellmore]

Trump is not the only guy in the room with a can of gasoline, you know, Walz and his "Fort Sumpter moment" isn't any better.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Brett, more than that, you don’t have the EDR data. DHS does.
They have a printout of which way you turn the wheel at when, how hot you stepped on the gas and when, etc.

It’s the first shot that’s relevant because that’s what he made the decision to shoot her. Tracking the target for the second and third is mainly training, it was really important is what he perceived two or three seconds before the bullet hit her because that’s what he actually made the decision to fire.

Now, if the EDR data shows, she turned the vehicle towards him and stepped to the gas, even if her foot was still on the brake, I would have fired and you would have as well because it looks like she’s in the process of deliberately running you down.

I’ve seen women do this, point the tire at you anto scare you and then can we drive in the other direction. Well FAFO.

[Malika la Maize]

There’s not much greater argument for further investigation than this from Ed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When we investigators have already reviewed that data?

[bernard11]

If that data exists, and ICE has it, why would they not release it?

I mean, the claim is that Ross was totally justified, so why not produce the evidence, I wonder?

[David Nieporent]

Brett, more than that, you don’t have the EDR data. DHS does.
They have a printout of which way you turn the wheel at when, how hot you stepped on the gas and when, etc.

Repeating this won't make it true.

I’ve seen women do this,

No, you haven't.

[not guilty]

Yeah, I don't think she really wanted to run him over. OTOH, I don't think she made much effort to NOT run him over. I keep coming back to this: You do NOT put your car into drive under such circumstances! She was looking right at him, in front of her car, when she pressed the pedal down!

What responsible driver does that?

There is no question that Renee Good acted foolishly and irresponsibly, with fatal consequences that were entirely avoidable.

What responsible cop crosses in front of a driver occupied vehicle with the engine running? What responsible person, let alone a trained LEO, fails to jump back out of the path of a moving vehicle? Either such exercise of caution could have prevented the whole situation. I don't claim to know, but I wonder whether Mr. Ross was then hoping Ms. Good would drive in his direction so that he could shoot her.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What responsible cop crosses in front of a driver occupied vehicle with the engine running?"

A cop crossing the street at a crosswalk, or like Dave N said, a cop walking in a Wal-Mart parking lot? A cop directing traffic?

"What responsible person, let alone a trained LEO, fails to jump back out of the path of a moving vehicle?"

I thought he jumped out of the path of the vehicle. In any event, the cop in Barnes v. Felix jumped on the door sill of a fleeing vehicle and shot the driver, and he was found to have acted reasonably.

[not guilty]

Fair enough. I should have asked, "What responsible cop, while effecting a traffic stop, crosses in front of a driver occupied vehicle with the engine running?"

There is a reason that police, for their own safety, approach such a vehicle from the rear.

As Sean Connery's character Jimmy Malone said to Kevin Costner's character Eliot Ness in The Untouchables, "You've just fulfilled the first rule of law enforcement: make sure when your shift is over you go home alive." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_qHkg0PXEo

[David Nieporent]

I wonder whether Mr. Ross was then hoping Ms. Good would drive in his direction so that he could shoot her.

There is a leaked CBP report from ~10 years ago — so, long before Renee Good — which concluded precisely that: that it appeared that CBP agents were intentionally putting themselves in front of moving vehicles to create justification for the use of deadly force.

[David Nieporent]

not engaging in a thorough investigation.

I think you miss Radley's point. Cops frequently don't engage in thorough investigations after a police shooting. But here, Bondi immediately announced there wouldn't be any investigation.

[SRG2]

At least there was an investigation into Babbitt's death.

[Mr. Bumble]

Hahahahaha.

[Malika la Maize]

The Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and the United States Department of Justice investigated Babbitt's death.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/politics/us-capitol-police-shooting-insurrection/index.html

[Mr. Bumble]

Like this:
Anyone remember Miriam Carey.
"An autopsy by the DC medical examiner was released in April 2014 and indicated that Carey was shot five times in the back, including one shot which hit the left side of the back of her head.[33] The autopsy listed the manner of death as homicide.[34] On July 10, 2014, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced that no charges would be filed against the federal officers and agents, stating, "After a thorough review of all the evidence, the U.S. Attorney's Office concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers who were involved in the shooting used excessive force or possessed the requisite criminal intent at the time of the events."[35]
From wiki.

[Malika la Maize]

What is this deflection supposed to argue?

[Mr. Bumble]

That "thorough" investigations seldom resolve much.
"Carey was shot five times in the back..."
"After a thorough review of all the evidence, the U.S. Attorney's Office concluded that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the officers who were involved in the shooting used excessive force or possessed the requisite criminal intent at the time of the events."[3
Compare this with what we know about Renee Good's shoting.

[Malika la Maize]

So your argument is there was a bad investigation once should we shouldn’t do a full investigation here?

[Mr. Bumble]

What should a full investigation entail and who should do it?
Do you honestly think anyone's opinion will be changed?

[Stephen Lathrop]

Mr. Bumble — there is not question what a full investigation of a homicide by gunshot should entail. It is a matter of professional expertise, widely taught and trained for.

The party who should do it should possess that expertise, and be a party otherwise uninvolved in the outcome of the investigation.

That last bit is what the Trump administration opposes, as do you.

[Malika la Maize]

“What should a full investigation entail and who should do it?”

Well, it might start with the Executive not wrongly prejudging it. Do you think that was good practice?

“Do you honestly think anyone's opinion will be changed?”

Investigations, as Balko points out, are not just about whether the shooting was ultimately legally justified, they are also about whether what happened followed best practices. I for one don’t think federal LEO use of deadly force should go without significant scrutiny, I get YMMV (depending on who is in charge of course).

[David Nieporent]

What should a full investigation entail and who should do it?

A joint state-federal investigation would be appropriate, and a full investigation would involve (at a minimum) interviewing all witnesses and participants (recall that it is a felony to lie to federal investigators, even if not under oath). Let's have the other agents on the scene explain why they didn't fire, for instance. Lets have the shooter explain why he was walking — against all established procedure — in front of a suspect's vehicle. And why, if he was scared, did he not even drop his phone? And let's see his actual medical records so we can see whether his ouchie was actually serious. And find out why he thought that shooting at her, rather than just getting out of the way, was a reasonable attempt at self-defense.

[David Nieporent]

This is disingenuous to the extent it's not just a pure whatabout. The implication that because Carey was shot from behind the shooting must have been bad ignores the fact that she was driving her car backwards at the time of the shooting. She was not driving away at low speed when she was shot; she had already driven (per the report) at 40-80 mph on city streets to evad

This is the short version of events, according to the DOJ investigation: https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/us-attorney-s-office-concludes-investigation-death-miriam-careyno-charges-be-filed

In any case, an investigation was conducted. This was released 9 months after the incident. Whereas (as noted above) Bondi immediately announced that there would be no investigation of the Good shooting at all.

[Bunny495]

Problem with giving both Goods the benefit of the doubt is that for a full three minutes before any ICE men arrived, they were perpendicular parked honking their horn while their pinko commie buddies were driving at least half a dozen cars honking horns or blowing whistles loudly on the sidewalk. They all knew what they were doing, obstructing a legit ICE activity (maybe an unwise activity but still legit) and creating a very hostile environment justifying the ICE men to be on high alert. Could Ross have deescalated and waited to get Renee arested later and slapped her with multiple crimes, sure. Do current laws protect Ross and make any legal recourse almost impossible, no question about that. Not to mention Ross gets a windfall from a million and a half gofundme stuff while Becca had her gofundme stuff frozen as she may well be charged with public stupidity.

[David Nieporent]

Problem with giving both Goods the benefit of the doubt is that for a full three minutes before any ICE men arrived, they were perpendicular parked honking their horn while their pinko commie buddies were driving at least half a dozen cars honking horns or blowing whistles loudly on the sidewalk.

So what? What does that have to do with the question of whether shooting Renee Good was valid? To the extent that there was an initial narrative that she might have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time, I agree that the things you describe would debunk that. But that narrative is irrelevant to the shooting.

Also, the facts you describe make things worse for ICE: if she was parked there before ICE arrived, then saying that her parking there was an attempt to obstruct ICE is refuted. (The horn honking may have been an attempt to alert the neighborhood that ICE was present, but that is not obstruction.)

[bernard11]

he hardly HAD to shoot her.

And isn't that the nub of the matter?

[bloocow2]

She was the the enemy and deserved to die, basically. I don't really know what kind of justice you can expect for her, when your law enforcement officers hide their identities with masks and abduct people from their homes with basically no repercussions.

I've no idea who is going to stop them. No doubt there will be some immigration hawks who have buyer's remorse about armed thugs bundling people into vans, but others seem to have no problem with it.

[mulched]

"armed thugs bundling people into vans" = "federal law enforcement officers arresting people with warrants and also arresting people committing crimes"

Sure, I'm okay with that.

[windycityattorney]

Fuck off.

[David Nieporent]

Remember the MAGA motto wrt government: "Please tread on everyone but me."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Actually, it’s tread on others the way you tread on me.

[Magister]

Or it's "one of ours, all of yours", also an official slogan of authoritarians like Kristi Noem.

[bernard11]

You know, I used to think Noem was just a sort of standard brainless right-winger.

Apparently I overestimated her. She really is a thug, devoted to her capo, and willing to do whatever it takes to win his favor.

[mulched]

Thank you, attorney opposed to arresting people with warrants and people committing crimes.

[windycityattorney]

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlwpqy/an_excellent_expression_of_our_challenging_times/

[LexAquilia]

She got what she deserved. Why be remorseful?

I don't cry and be all liberal when I squash a bug. DhS shouldn't either.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re the one, of course, acting like a bug.

[Frank Drackman]

Do you say a prayer of gratitude for the Pig who gave his life for your Hot Dog??
OK, the Cow, Chicken, whatever.
And I don't mean thanking some imaginary Heavenly being for providing the Pig, Cow, Chicken.
They (Pigs, Cows, Chickens) do more for Humanity than all of your Rebecca Good, Floyd George, Rodney Kings combined.
Wait, I'm not saying I want to dine on Ground Rebecca Good, Floyde George, Rodney King (the thing about dining on Blacks, it's all "Dark Meat") Just that they're more valuable.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Pro-life Frankie!

[SRG2]

Balko nails it as usual.

No investigation, and a refusal to hand evidence over to state authorities is a clear cover-up

In refusing to investigate Ms. Good’s death, the Department of Justice is, at a minimum, indicating that it doesn’t believe that preventing similar deaths is all that important. But the real explanation may be more sinister. Since she was killed, we’ve seen multiple videos in which immigration officers refer to her death to threaten people lawfully observing or recording them.

And the cultists approve.

[Brett Bellmore]

I don't think this proves a cover-up. I think it's something different: The state government is openly hostile to enforcement of immigration laws, they think they're entitled to their own immigration policy.

The feds don't believe any federal officer enforcing those laws can get a fair shake from the state authorities.

[Absaroka]

I'm trying to remember - what was your position on the feds degree of cooperation with a state investigation of Waco?

I'm kind of the opinion that when the government shoots someone, the more investigation the better. If state and fed investigations reach different conclusions, OK, put all the evidence out there and we can all decide. But the feds thinking the state may come to conclusions the feds don't like doesn't seem like a good reason to stonewall a state investigation (or vice versa).

[Brett Bellmore]

Look, I don't disagree that this should be investigated by the state. I'm just saying that, given the manifest state government hostility to ICE, it's not unreasonable for the feds to doubt such an investigation would be unbiased, that a coverup doesn't have to be their only motive.

[Absaroka]

I'm happy for them to suspect whatever they want, while cooperating with the state investigation. And for that matter, not interfering with the FBI's investigation:

"The agent, Tracee Mergen, left her job as a supervisor in the F.B.I.’s Minneapolis field office after bureau leadership in Washington pressured her to discontinue a civil rights inquiry into the immigration officer, Jonathan Ross, according to one of the people. Such inquiries are a common investigative step in similar shootings."

[Dr. Ed 2]

Good riddance

[bernard11]

I'm just saying that, given the manifest state government hostility to ICE, it's not unreasonable for the feds to doubt such an investigation would be unbiased,

Is it unreasonable for the state to doubt that the federal investigation would be unbiased? Whatever the state hostility, the facts are that Trump and Noem announced their conclusions almost immediately after the incident - no investigation, nothing. If you expect an investigation controlled by Noem, or Bondi, to contradict those conclusions, you're nuts.

As usual, you can't admit the Administration did anything wrong, or is dishonest, and search for any excuse for their behavior.

[Life of Brian]

So taking as granted mutual hostility between the feds and state, it doesn't take much imagination at all to predict that their investigations will amazingly reach the exact opposite conclusions: total exoneration by the feds; total culpability by the state.

Where do we go from there?

[Malika la Maize]

Well, people could read the reports of both and make conclusions.

But of course you haven’t even addressed the real points:

1. Was it correct for the President to wrongly prejudge the investigation publicly?
2. Was it right for the Feds to not follow the usual investigation protocol?

I mean, you’re a “classic liberal”who believes in pre-established due process and rule of law and totally not a tribalism pretending to be the former, so tell us.

[Malika la Maize]

Tribalist

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, after noting the stone-cold silence in response to my substantial and good-faith effort to engage your questions yesterday, it did start to feel like you were just gathering ammo to try to use against me as you're doing here.

This sort of poor-faith tactic has been your hallmark from the earliest days of your QA moniker, and as you'll recall I stopped engaging with you for a long time because of it. I thought you might be turning over a new leaf these days and gave it another shot. I see nothing at all has changed.

[Malika la Maize]

I haven’t checked yesterday’s discussion for like a day, but you’ve obviously held on to it.

Tell me your good faith effort from then. I’ll happily respond, but after I do I’d appreciate an answer to my question posed here.

[Life of Brian]

Nope -- not taking any more of your bad-faith bait. That goes both to your off-topic questions you're trying to interject into my exchange with Bernard, and to your sudden feigned inability to find our several-round exchange in yesterday's open thread.

[Malika la Maize]

You’re crazy, you know that?

I don’t monitor my discussions from a day ago here. That’s not “bad faith.”

Whatever I said to you yesterday I meant. If you replied yesterday and made some point you think is critical here today just re-post it. I’d be happy to respond (but maybe not a day later, you’d have to repost that!).

[Malika la Maize]

Hmm. No answer.

You’re like Mikie Q, you want a safe space that doesn’t focus on you. You love to come in late on a conversation and kick some liberal here, but you can’t stand to have yourself subjected to scrutiny.

[Life of Brian]

Ah, so it's like 50 First Trolls -- every day a clean slate.

And you never ever ever went back in time to continue an exchange back when open threads happened once or twice a week.

Whatever, Qualika. You exude bad faith. Enjoy it.

[Life of Brian]

[And that goes for double now that I see your next troll ratchet step of putting me on a 30-minute clock to reply. Shameless.]

[bernard11]

Where do we go from there?

I don't know, but we're not going anywhere now. At least the state investigation would not let the inevitably BS federal report stand unchallenged.

An investigation might not accomplish anything, but we are not going to learn much more about the incident if we don't have a serious investigation, and I think there are things to be learned, and a number of possible conclusions about Ross's behavior. (Some of those seem to have frightened Bondi.)

Ross aside, we might also learn that ICE's training is badly inadequate, or its hiring practices careless, hardly unlikely when you expand as they did, or that its procedures are overly aggressive.

[Life of Brian]

I get what you're saying, but under the best of circumstances I can't imagine a state-level investigation going past the actual facts on the ground of what happened here and getting into broader internal issues like ICE training policies. I could be way off, but that seems like a structural problem under the Supremacy Clause.

And I don't disagree in principle that there are things we could learn from an investigation. But going back to my earlier point, I think the two sides were already at such loggerheads even before the incident that it's just not likely that either are liable to be particularly even-handed about how they paint the picture.

(Some of those seem to have frightened Bondi.)

What did you mean by this? I've not been 100% on top of this and may have missed a recent plot twist.

[SRG2]

1. It should be investigated by both Feds and state.

2. If the Feds have decided not to investigate, they should return all the evidence they had previously seized from the state. They are refusing to do so, which prima facie means that it's inculpatory.

[Malika la Maize]

I’m not saying there must be a state investigation, I’m saying the Feds prejudged and didn’t fully investigate this.

[Bunny495]

Even a 1Y knows the feds have jurisdiction and the almost four-minute video is so telling it defies reality to think Ross does not have the high legal ground.

[jb]

It's worse than a cover-up: it's the administration openly declaring that ICE can do whatever it wants with no consequences.

And not for nothing, while there's some cities (including Minneapolis and St. Paul) that can reasonably be called sanctuary cities in Minnesota, that doesn't apply state-wide. And even in Minneapolis, the hostility to ICE seems to be coming more from the populace than government officials, although ICE does seem to be pissing off more and more local police departments through their lawlessness. Not just in Minnesota.

[Malika la Maize]

Colorado authorities on Friday said they had found no evidence to suggest that the writer Hunter S. Thompson died of anything other than suicide, following a monthslong review of the 2005 death of the gonzo journalist.

In September the sheriff of Pitkin County in Colorado, Michael Buglione, asked the Colorado Bureau of Investigation to re-examine the death of Hunter, who was found dead in the kitchen at his compound in Woody Creek, Colo., near Aspen, on a snowy Sunday in February 2005. At the time, investigators with the sheriff’s department determined that Hunter, who was in failing health, had taken his own life with a single gunshot to his head.

And that’s where matters stood for two decades, until last year, when Hunter’s widow, Anita Thompson, approached Mr. Buglione with her suspicions about the official story of her husband’s death. Anita had speculated that her late husband’s son, Juan, and Juan’s then-wife, Jennifer Winkel, might have had something to do with his death, either by murdering him or assisting him in taking his own life.

Juan and Jennifer have long denied having any role in the death. In its statement on Friday, the C.B.I. concluded that “all speculative theories could not be substantiated.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/hunter-s-thompson-suicide.html

[Frank Drackman]

I've been a HST fan since following his accounts of the 1972 Erection in Rolling Stone, which is where he made his famous “Hubert Humphrey is a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese current.”
Which surprisingly, wasn't because of HHH's role in the deaths of 60,000 Americans (and millions of Vietnamese, but who cares?, but about Humphrey's attempt to steal the 1972 Nomination from George McGovern, sort of like Hillary Rodman tried to pull on Barry Osama in 2008.
Even more surprisingly (to me anyway, I'm easily surprised. Was Hunter and (then Candidate) Richard Milhouse had a surprisingly (see previous) Civil conversation in the backseat of a Limo, talking Foo-Bawl instead of Most Favored Nation Policy.
That was 1968, can you imagine that happening with Common-Law Harris, who wouldn't even go on Joe Rogan, who would have given her Oral Pleasure like she's never had before.
But how could they really investigate his death 30 years later??, he was cremated and had his Ashes fired from a Cannon, which is the way I'd like to leave this Moral Coral, (in 50-60 years, or maybe never, if Elon gets this whole "Aging" thing figured out)

Frank

[Bunny495]

As a son of a son of a sailor, I always favored HST's legal philosophy.

“It was the Law of the Sea, they said. Civilization ends at the waterline. Beyond that, we all enter the food chain, and not always right at the top.”

[Mr. Bumble]

Has anyone out there in VC land experienced snowmagedon yet?
I know it's been colder than Hillary's teat in much of the country, but has anyone experienced the snow, or ice (not the DHS type) that the media have been hawking all week?

[Malika la Maize]

Hasn’t made Maryland yet but the cold sure has. It’s too cold to walk the dogs so I’m thinking of taking them for a tour of Petsmart when it opens.

[Frank Drackman]

No Snow/Ice in Atlanta yet, put there's so much Salt on the Road I asked one of the Truck Drivers for a Lime (that's a Dos Equis joke).
Was in Duluth MN a few weeks ago, temp in single digits, fluries the whole time, saw a guy pumping gas in a T-shirt, if it was in the 30's he'd be wearing shorts and flip flops.
Georgia on the other hand, gets below 50 and the Homeless look like friggin Wehrmacht Prisoners in Stalingrad, burning trash to stay warm.

Frank

[Mr. Bumble]

Remember a snow/ice storm when I was station at Ft. Gordon. The streets of Augusta looked like they held a city wide demolition derby.

[ThePublius]

South Coast of Massachusetts this morning, 7º. And, it's been sitting there for hours and isn't warming up, even with sunrise at 7:03 a.m.

Thankfully I had my heating issue addressed Wednesday and Thursday! The gas fired hot water boiler was failing to fire in the morning. I could override it, but by that time the house was cold as was the boiler and it would take hours for it to warm the house. Today it went on as programmed and seems to be working well.

For the storm I got some frozen pizzas (DiGiorno is the best!), a frozen lasagna, hot dogs and hamburger meat and buns, and a big jug of gin and bottles of tonic. 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

DiGiorno's OK, but I still love those cheap Totino's "Party Pizzas" (just not the same since they took out the Trans Fats)
Frankie Travel Tip, go to the local "Mom & Pop" Pizzeria, tell them you're from Barstool Sports, doing Advance Work for Dave Portnoy's "One Bite Pizza Reviews" and ask for their best Pie. Even if they don't comp you, you'll get a fresh one, probably made with a little more care than the ones they serve the Hoi Polloi.
Umm, make sure you don't go to a place he's been to before, those Old Italian families don't appreciate someone trying to pull a fast one.

Frank

[bernard11]

8° here in Cambridge. I think the snow is supposed to show up tomorrow late afternoon.

[Frank Drackman]

I'd keep playing. I don't think the heavy stuff's going to come down for quite a while.

[bernard11]

No problem playing. My favorite games are played indoors.

The heavy snow comes tomorrow afternoon, I think, and goes for about 20 hours.

I'm reasonably well stocked, and expect no difficulties.

[Bwaaah]

Beer, hot dogs, Martin's Potato Rolls, steaks, and everything I need for a big tray of beef, bean and cheese nachos. And beer.

[bernard11]

I'd add some wine and coffee (and maybe cookies), but I think you're basically OK.

[Bunny495]

As a Florida man high today is 79. Florida is declining to participate in this bullshit.

[Bwaaah]

9° in NYC this morning. I'm doing business as usual today, albeit with an additional layer. This weather helps to scare a lot of people out of the way...makes the going smoother for me out there.

I always do the shoveling in front of my building...about 150 feet of walkway to clear. Snow time is go time, and I'm revved as usual.

And I LOVE SNOW!!! When that white stuff comes down, I'm like a kid in a candy store. I'm giddy now. Giddy.

[Krayt]

My car is reporting 0°F this morning. I just turned down the heater and turned off the seat heating because my ass is burning as I sit here sipping my morning iced coffee.

We might get 1 to 4 inches tonight where I am, that's it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlTb0o2XAyg

[Bwaaah]

Chilly with only 1 to 4...all dressed up with no place to go.

Did I mention I LOVE SNOW!!! LOL

[hobie]

Currently 2F in Cleveland. Clear and sunny, but bitterly, bitterly cold.

[Frank Drackman]

Just imagine your cuddled up against AlGores layers of fat.

[ducksalad]

77F here, but very muggy so we've got the AC on. After you asked I went out to check, but there was no snow.

[Bunny495]

You must be one of those Yankees I keep hearing about. My high is 79, and yes the AC kicked on.

[Brett Bellmore]

Temperature is still gradually dropping. The freezing rain is supposed to kick in about 9PM.

We have enough food stocked, the cars are gassed up and both of them equipped to supply 110 to keep our freezer and fridge running, brought enough firewood into the house to last several days. I do hope the power doesn't go out too long, if it does the heater out in the chicken coop will stop keeping the chickens' water from freezing over.

The coming week is supposed to be very cold by SC Piedmont standards, Tuesday it should bottom out at maybe 12 degrees.

[SRG2]

Trump unnecessarily pisses off NATO allies because he's a vile POS.

Trump leaves NATO allies "dumbfounded" and "disgusted" with remarks dismissing sacrifices in Afghanistan

European military veterans, families of the fallen, and politicians have voiced outrage after President Trump claimed the U.S. had "never needed" its NATO allies, and that allied troops had stayed "a little off the front lines" during the 20-year war in Afghanistan.

Do you too want to be a vile POS? Then defend him.

[Frank Drackman]

Vile POS?? Someone call for a Vile POS??
It's like the N-word, only we Vile POS's can call people Vile POS's.
Yes, there were some British, French, German, Danes, bla bla bla in Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe even a hundred thousand total if you count every Frog Eating Beret Wearing Gedarme' who warmed a chair in the rear with the gear.
Not quite the same as the over 2 million Amuricans who did the real fighting (and are still over there, WTF are Iowa National Guardsman getting killed in Syria for? We need them killing the Terrorists in Minneapolis, not Damascus.

Frank

[SRG2]

Fuck off, Frank. Yes, you too are a vile POS

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

[Frank Drackman]

Fuck off?
Well you're certainly not an Officer and a Gentleman, you've got to buy me dinner first.
And can you give me a ride on your Triumph Bonneville? In your Dress Blues??
Not saying NATO didn't help, but it's like "Rudy" getting into 3 plays during his whole time at Note Dame and milking that shit for 50 years.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Not when people died, denigrating their sacrifice is POS territory.

[Frank Drackman]

Like "Your" side has been doing since Effing Vietnam.
Which was a Wah started by JFK, waged by LBJ, and ended by Richard Milhouse, and the real reason he was hounded from Orifice, he did away with the Draft!!! Detanted with the Chinks and Roosh-uns!! Pulled the Troops out of Veet'Nam!!!! You mean we're going to have to actually PAY people to join the Military??? We're not going to be able to sell unlimited numbers of Helicopters/Aircraft to replace the ones shot down bombing uninhabited Jungle?!?!?!? IMPEACH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Actually Milhouse got off easy, it was probably JFK's reluctance to widen the Wah that bought him a one way ticket (non refundable) to Dallas.
Yeah, it was your side who called Lt Dan a Baby Killer, and my side that buys today's Servicemen Drinks and gives them my First Class Seat (occasionally, if it's a really short flight)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

"Thank you for your service." ™

They usually insert one of those, don't they?

[Malika la Maize]

Recently disaffected liberal thinks it’s totally cool for POTUS to denigrate the sacrifice of our NATO allies coming to our aid. I guess what he really wants to know is how did the Democrats make Trump’s denigration happen!

[Bwaaah]

Who thinks that?

I'm just savoring the feeling of being some angry bitch's foil.

[Malika la Maize]

I’ve never denigrated anyone’s service because I’m not a POS like you.

[Frank Drackman]

Of course not, you're a POS in your own unique way.

[Malika la Maize]

Not in the “denigrate the deaths of allies” camp. That’s you.

[Frank Drackman]

I'm against denigration. I just move away.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Gotta agree with Malika here. Executive Order 9981 was a great milestone, and no one should attempt to undo it.

[Bwaaah]

Malicia: "I’ve never denigrated anyone’s service because I’m not a POS like you."

You should be called "Malika The Respectful." People can really connect with that.

[Malika la Maize]

According to Gemini NATO casualties for Afghanistan:

United Kingdom: ~450 - 457 fatalities.
Canada: ~159 fatalities.
France: ~89 - 90 fatalities.
Germany: ~62 fatalities.
Italy: ~53 fatalities.
Denmark:~53 fatalities

Yeah, no real fighting there.

[ThePublius]

Compared to:

Between October 7, 2001, and the withdrawal on August 30, 2021, 2,461 U.S. military personnel were killed in Afghanistan. Over 20,700 U.S. service members were wounded in action during the conflict. Additionally, over 3,800 U.S. contractors lost their lives.

Last I checked the U.S. was (still) part of NATO. Interesting that you omitted the U.S. in your stats.

[Malika la Maize]

Of course I did, no one is questioning the US sacrifice there in response to an attack on the US, it was Trump and MAGAns like Frankie denigrating our NATO partners’ sacrifice, so it’s their losses that are germane.

[Sarcastr0]

Afghanistan was a US war of choice.
Our allies joined, not for themselves, but to help us, their ally, our.

Those are not the same thing.

[ThePublius]

Isn't it a NATO obligation for them to support us in that case?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, so what?
It doesn't count as a sacrifice if there's a treaty?

Remember - this conversation is about shitting on our NATO allies because they haven't acquiesced to us taking over another NATO ally.

[Malika la Maize]

And they did, and many of them died, and Trump denigrated that.

[Voize of Reazon]

Article 5 requires each NATO ally to assist an attacked member, taking "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area" but it doesn't compel a military response. Those countries were not obligated to put their lives on the line for the US, but they did anyway.

[Sarcastr0]

The ugly Americans will show up anon.

MAGA has taught that American nationalism via denigrating other countries is a virtue.
Bonus points if you can lament how a European country used to be cool but has been taken over by Muslims or some other dusky horde.

[DaveM]

Interesting that the one being called a "vile POS" never says that about anyone. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, Trump never insults people. Super civil and never swears, that one!

Seriously, dude?

[John 4]

You people cannot be serious.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks John, but I have to ask,
Is Patty as good as Tatum (was)?
I'm pretty sure Johnny Mac is a "MAGA" fan, both
from Queens, Rich, Multiple Hot Wives.
Remember when he hit the Scene in the late 70's (John, not Donald) suddenly every teen Tennis player was doing that exaggerated back arching Serve and yelling "You CANNOT be Serious!!!!!' after every questionable call .

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Trump would never, ever resort to profanity placed attacks!

Stop beclowning yourself.

[jb]

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3660233-trump-calls-mcconnell-a-piece-of-s-in-haberman-book/

[Malika la Maize]

Green Bay Packers offensive lineman Rasheed Walker was arrested Friday morning at LaGuardia Airport in New York after he tried to check in a bag that contained a firearm.

Walker, 25, was taken into custody and charged with two counts of second-degree criminal possession of a weapon and criminal possession of a firearm, according to the New York Post. He appeared in Queens County Criminal Court on the gun charge and was released later Friday.

According to the Post, citing a criminal complaint, Walker told an airline employee that his bag contained a locked box holding a handgun. Port Authority Police, after being alerted by the employee, searched Walker's bag and found a 9mm Glock pistol along with 36 rounds of ammo in the locked box.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/47711787/packers-walker-arrested-la-guardia-airport-gun-charge

So, yeah he should have realized this wasn’t going to go through but why arrest him rather than just turn him away given he told them upfront about the gun?

[ThePublius]

"So, yeah he should have realized this wasn’t going to go through but why arrest him rather than just turn him away given he told them upfront about the gun?"

Wow, we agree on something. I think it's a case of societal hoplophobia. While you can't bring a bottle of liquid more than 100ml onto a plane, they don't arrest you if you forgot you have one, and if you declare you have one they just take it away.

Walker should have properly declared and checked the firearm. But once he declared he has it, he should have been told to go back and check it, not arrest him.

I've checked fireamrs, it's not hard, but the dummies put a sticker on the luggage saying 'firearm,' or should I say 'steal me!'

(I have been twice required to surrender nice corkscrews because of the tiny blade used to cut the foil on the bottle. I was so pissed!)

[Frank Drackman]

I guess you read about as well as your average NFL Player.
Possession of that gun in New Yawk is a Felony, and you can't walk into a Public Orifice, commit a Felony, and expect just to "turn him away"
Oh, unless you're Hunter Biden.
And lucky he wasn't across the river in New Jersey where the Hollow point Ammunition would be a felony in itself.
Remember the Soprano's episode where Tony dropped a 9mm in the Snow while running from the FBI? Same Ballpark.
Or Airport.
Myself, I never fly armed, because of exactly that, you have to tell Mustafa or Montel, or Jaqueefa that you have a Gun, then they put a big sticker on your bag letting Julio, Enrique, and all the other Baggage Handlers know to be careful with your "Piece"
And your bag still gets searched by TSA, you think Bubba, Jim Bobb, or Sea Bass isn't gonna be tempted, even if they don't steal it, you still get the Cooties from their nasty Dick Beaters feeling up your fine firearm.
Nope, on the Road, I have to depend on my Bruce Lee Inspired Martial Arts Style (no actual strikes or kicks, I just scream really loud) and my Rapists-like Wit.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

NY has a history about this. They confiscate every gun they possibly can, and prosecute any time they have the slightest excuse.

If you're legally traveling with a checked gun, and your plane diverts to NY due to weather or mechanical problems, they have an arrangement with airlines to alert them, so that they can arrest you when you take possession of your checked bag, even!

If you're driving from one state to another, and go through a corner of NY, despite the federal law protecting travel with firearms, if you so much as stop to take a piss they take the position that you've committed a felony.

They really are simply out to punish as much as possible anybody who dares to exercise this right. It's not anything about public safety or being reasonable, they flat out hate this right.

[ThePublius]

New Jersey is worse.

[MarkJawz]

Trump should be prosecuting any cop, judge, or DA in New York who participated in this for violations of 18 USC 241. And don't let it be heard by an Pedo Joe or Obongo judge, or before a jury full of Democrat Party perverts.

This guy did it correctly, and properly declared his checked firearm, but the Port Authority police thugs can't help themselves.

The only rights Democrats actually don't hate are killing third trimester babies and gay buttsex.

[Malika la Maize]

Disaffected liberal approved!

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah. 241 is for private violations. You want 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law.

[not guilty]

No, Brett, 18 U.S.C. § 241 is not limited to private conspiracies. The gravamen of § 241 is conspiracy -- an inchoate offense. That of § 242 is an intentional, actual deprivation under color of law. The same defendant can be convicted of both under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), because each offense includes an essential element that the other does not.

Section 241 does not require an actual deprivation, nor even an overt act by any conspirator. Section 242 does not require the participation of more than one person.

For example, Cecil Ray Price, the Deputy Sheriff of Neshoba County, Mississippi, was convicted under § 242 for his participation in willfully subjecting Michael Henry Schwerner, James Earl Chaney and Andrew Goodman to the substantive deprivation of their right not to be summarily punished without due process contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment. Two other law enforcement officers and fifteen nonofficial defendants. SCOTUS opined that:

Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting "under color" of law for purposes of the statute. To act "under color" of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.

United States v. Price, 383 U.S. 787, 794 (1966).

All defendants there, both official and nonofficial, were also charged with conspiracy under § 241 for having "conspired together . . . to injure, oppress, threaten and intimidate" Schwerner, Chaney and Goodman "in the free exercise and enjoyment of the right and privilege secured to them by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States not to be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law by persons acting under color of the laws of Mississippi." Id., at 796.

The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the lower courts' dismissals of indictments against all defendants. Id., at 807. Upon remand, an all white jury convicted seven defendants (including Price), acquitted eight defendants and failed to reach a verdict as to three defendants, one of whom was retried and convicted in 2005. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Price

[Absaroka]

"why arrest him"

He was a Wisconsin resident who, I presume, did not have a New York pistol license. So when you show up with the gun, you are by definition guilty of unlicensed possession of a pistol in New York state. NYC, I think, has even stricter requirements.

Since Bruen, NY issues carry licenses to non-residents who are "part-time NY State residents or anyone who is principally employed or has his or her principal place of business in the state" according to this site. If that is right, I don't see how not issuing them to travelers comports with Bruen. As a practical matter, of course, I don't think a scheme that requires multiple state permits for travelers can comport with Bruen. Imagine an 18 wheeler driver, for example, trying to keep up with permitting in multiple states.

What Brett is talking about is even worse: you are flying from Virginia to Maine and check a gun, legal in both states. A warning light comes on in the cockpit and the plane lands in NJ or NY. The airline puts all the baggage on the carousel. The minute you pick up your suitcase you are illegally possessing a gun in NY/NJ. IANAL, maybe you can just leave the luggage on the carousel, or maybe that violates a safe storage law, I dunno. Perhaps you could find an officer, point to the suitcase and say 'there is a gun in that suitcase, and I am abandoning that suitcase, goodbye' and be in the clear.

And you are right, stuff like this is a big reason the call for 'reasonable gun laws' doesn't get a lot of traction with gun owners.

[Frank Drackman]

Remember on my Cardiac Anesthesia rotation there was a Resident from Pock-E-Stan with a particularly bad body odor, I mean it was so bad, even the Arab's made fun of him.
"Hey Look! it's Samir the Pungent Punjab!!!"
Felt bad for the guy, had trouble starting IV's, which for a Gas Passer is like a Baseball Pitcher who can't throw, I mean there's only so many times you can "disengage' from the Rubber.
Seriously, his signature move was to "go check something in the OR" and hope someone else would put the IV in for him.
Last I heard he gave up Medicine and was taking Flight Lessons with his friend Moe Attah, wonder what ever happened to him?

Frank

[MarkJawz]

I don't think mere possession in a locked box should ever require a permit, anywhere. New York is an outlier, in that even possession of a handgun at home requires a permit. Even most other deep blue states aren't like that.

[jb]

And you are right, stuff like this is a big reason the call for 'reasonable gun laws' doesn't get a lot of traction with gun owners.

The fact that there are unreasonable gun laws are the reason that gun owners aren't in favor of reasonable gun laws?

There's some dumb driving laws out there, but that doesn't mean I think everyone should be able to drive a car without a license.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, you seen the gun threads? It's the paranoid style of American politics to a T.

Everything is a scheme to take their guns, and everything is done in bad faith because tyranny or something.

They've basically won the debate, and seem to have never felt more oppressed.

[MarkJawz]

Nearly everything done by the left with respect to guns IS in bad faith.

[Bwaaah]

"Everything is a scheme to take their guns, and everything is done in bad faith because tyranny or something."

Have you considered the well-documented history of the out-in-the-open efforts by New York State (and New York City) to deny and frustrate gun ownership rights? Bruen tells some of the story in detail. Are you ignorant, or are you deceitful?

The thoroughly anti-gun-possession aspirations of New York State Democrats is not disputed by anybody but you. You can hide behind that big tree, Mr. Fudd, ... the one that AG Letitia James is standing out in front of. She lacks any of your shame.

[not guilty]

Everything is a scheme to take their guns, and everything is done in bad faith because tyranny or something.

They've basically won the debate, and seem to have never felt more oppressed.

How much is that is morbid fear of emasculation? Not everyone is blessed with the combination of brains and intestinal fortitude that it takes to walk around unarmed.

As for me, I am skeptical of government imposed gun control because I take a pro-choice position there. I believe that there is an individual constitutional right to defend oneself and one's family, including the right to choose the means to do so (although I would ground that more in substantive due process than in the Second Amendment,) and I believe that District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was correctly decided, including the recognition there that:

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. . . . Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Id., at 626-627.

That having been said, those whose well being and sense of self depend on any inanimate object, whether that be a popgun, a cigarette or a flask of whiskey, deserved to be scorned and ostracized. Like Bosco Albert "B.A." Baracus, I pity those fools.

[jay.tee]

How much is that is morbid fear of emasculation? Not everyone is blessed with the combination of brains and intestinal fortitude that it takes to walk around unarmed.

You’re either stunningly ignorant or a desperate troll. Either way, you paint with an awfully broad, bigoted brush. Need to add incurious to even attempt to understand why people carry.

[MarkJawz]

You're either an idiot or being disingenuous.

[Absaroka]

Well, NY isn't saying their law is unreasonable. Evidently they think it's reasonable. When people use the phrase, all too often they are talking about pretty unreasonable things.

[jb]

I'm sure there's plenty of room to disagree about what constitutes reasonable. Personally, I'd be pretty fine with a regime similar to car licensing--i.e., you need some training and the guns also need to be registered, but there's a presumption that people who go through those steps can have (a) gun(s). Reasonable people have arguments about why that approach is too strict or not strict enough.

As with abortion and immigration, I'd imagine most Americans think the best policy outcome is between the two extremes, but as with those topics our political system seems mostly interested in trying to deliver either New York style crackdowns or Idaho style everyone can do whatever they want which just perpetuates the cycle of half the people being unhappy all the time.

[Absaroka]

I'll give you an example from my state (WA). These aren't every little tweak, just the highlights.

prior to 1968: you can buy a gun like you can buy a chainsaw or car - hand over the money, take it home with you. After all the 1960's assassinations, federal background check instituted

1968 until ??2015?? (too lazy to look up exact year): you have to fill out the form, the dealer calls the FBI for approval. If you have a CPL (concealed permit, you have been fingerprinted etc) you take the gun home. If not, 3 day waiting period. Not a lot of objection from gun owners.

couple years ago: federal check, then 10 day waiting period even if you have a CPL, plus fee

starting soon: first go to the sheriff's office, pay fee, get fingerprinted. Sheriff eventually issues a license to purchase. Take that to the store, pay for the gun, pass the fed background check, wait ?10? days, get your gun.

So explain to me why passing the background check for the carry permit isn't enough of a check to let you buy a gun to go with the permit? Or what good a waiting period does for someone who already owns a gun.

ps: another fun twist - the last time I bought a gun - a super scary bolt action rifle - I went through the process. While the waiting period was running a friend had health problems and we left town to do the caregiver thing. The gun store said if I wasn't back within ?10? ?14? days after approval we'd have to start over and pay the fees again and wait again.

I can keep going if you want 🙂

[Frank Drackman]

In Georgia you go on a website, see a gun you like, send the seller a message, meet, pay him(it's always a him) the agreed on price, he takes your money, you take his gun.
Once in a while you'll get some Prick who wants to see your ID, I always say, "Franklin" (holding up a $100 Bill)

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

"The fact that there are unreasonable gun laws are the reason that gun owners aren't in favor of reasonable gun laws?"

It's not just that there "are" unreasonable gun laws. It's that they're almost ALL unreasonable.

What's a "reasonable" gun law? A law that prohibits you from doing with a gun anything that would be illegal with a baseball bat, essentially, and leaves it at that.

But the need for such laws is basically obliviated by the existence of criminal law; Every wrongful act that I could commit with a gun is already illegal without a gun specific law!

Which only leaves gun laws either redundant, or targeting acts that aren't wrongful. What the hell is wrongful about your magazine holding 16 rounds instead of 12, for instance.

"Reasonable gun control" is as much a theoretical construct as "separate but equal"; In principle separate but equal could be a thing, but for the fact that nobody who demands separate WANTS equal.

Similarly, basically nobody who demands gun laws wants them to be reasonable. Their aim actually IS infringing the right.

[Randal]

You can say he same thing about the hoplophiles, who think any minor inconvenience is an assault on the Constitution.

I think "reasonable gun control" laws exist. You should take the left at its word that it would support such laws if they were proposed, even if they don't go as far as they might desire. But would the right? It seems unlikely, due to their absolutist take on the matter.

[Brett Bellmore]

Once again demonstrating that gun controllers either can't or won't reason about gun ownership as an actual constitutional right.

You don't get to 'minorly inconvenience' exercise of a constitutional right, without a damned good reason!

Yes, there's such a thing as a reasonable gun law. Requirements that gun ranges have safe backstops. Product safety laws that require that guns not go off if dropped.

Not this magazine limit crap, trying to ban popular types of rifles, prohibiting gun stores from being sited in a city by hook and crook.

Again, I'll say it: Heller overturned the most extreme gun law in the country, and reasonable gun controllers went nuts. And that tells us everything we needed to know about what they think is reasonable.

[Randal]

It doesn't matter what they think is reasonable. It matters what is reasonable.

You don't get to 'minorly inconvenience' exercise of a constitutional right, without a damned good reason!

You've given a good definition of "reasonable" here. Saving lives is a damned good reason.

[jay.tee]

Saving lives is a damned good reason.

That reason can be - and has been - twisted to subvert every Constitutionally protected right.

[Randal]

Do you think the First Amendment has been "subverted" by the life-saving exceptions to it?

[ducksalad]

Since you asked, yes. The "shouting fire in a crowded theater" reasoning has been used innumerable times by people seeking to undermine the First Amendment, invariably in situations that aren't remotely related to fires or theaters.

The first time that particular "reason" was invoked was to imprison someone for six months for suggesting that men avoid the draft in WWI. Not for avoiding the draft, but for suggesting it in the form of a leaflet.

[Randal]

You jumped straight to an abuse of the rule. Same thing Brett keeps doing.

If that's your point, then just say it: we can't have reasonable rules because they get abused.

I assume that means you think it's a First Amendment right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater, right?

[ducksalad]

If that's your point, then just say it: we can't have reasonable rules because they get abused.

I wouldn't put it as categorically as that. But I'd say both the potential for abuse, and the history of abuse, always need to be considered and will sometimes outweigh the risk. The acceptable amount of risk is not zero, and in a country with 350 million people even small risks mean some lives will be lost.

When I hear someone say "if even one life...." then that's a signal to me that they are not willing to acknowledge that liberties are worth making some sacrifices for.

Should we say shouting fire in a theater is protected by the 1st Amendment? To me it is not at all a silly question, and once or twice here I floated the idea. If the prohibition in practice is (ab)used mainly as a precedent to get a foot in the door and a nose in the tent, then maybe it's worth dumping it.

PS I don't own a gun and don't want to. But I very much like the 2nd Amendment because it's a constant reminder that we don't just have harmless innocuous childproof freedoms. We have serious non-trivial freedoms that show trust in individuals when it matters.

[Nelson]

“ What's a "reasonable" gun law?”

Any law that places the responsibility for the gun and anything done with it on the owner.

These waiting period/ammunition/gun limit laws that are designed to annoy and inconvenience gun owners are ridiculous, in my opinion. They make gun ownership harder and more burdensome, but don’t actually decrease the number of guns or make anyone safer.

The problem is that there is no accountability for gun owners, nor are guns adequately tracked. The purpose of a gun is to kill things. That puts it in a unique category of products.

Simple and reasonable gin laws would start with two foundational pieces: all guns must be registered and anything done with a gun is the responsibility of the gun owner.

The biggest problem is that gun owners are pretty irresponsible with such a deadly implement and there is no accountability when that irresponsibility leads to death. Plus, of course, you have the straw purchases and other criminal behavior that doesn’t adequately punish those who buy guns for criminals to use.

So the first law would be simple: all guns must be registered with an owner. That owner must be a person. That owner is responsible for that weapon.

The second law would be that the owner must control their weapons at all times. They are responsible for them and anything done with them. This would also require them to report any theft or unauthorized use immediately.

They should always know where their guns are and who is using them. So if their gun is stolen and they don’t notice for a week, that is an irresponsible gun owner. All times means all times.

Would that require extensive protections and security for the guns? Sure, if the owner wants to. If they don’t think it’s necessary, they don’t have to. I think the laws requiring safe storage of guns are kinda pointless, since they would only matter if something bad happened with the gun and then it is a minor penalty. The fact that the owner would be liable if someone killed someone else with their gun is a much more robust prevention measure.

I happen to be one of those who believe that the Second Amendment, while creating unfortunate side effects in America, is a Constitutional Amendment and therefore is a bedrock law of the land. But the right to keep and bear arms doesn’t mean that there is no accountability or responsibility.

In fact, because of the deadly consequences of guns, it is more justified to require responsible gun ownership than it is to require, for example, responsible speech or responsible religion.

Thoughts? Would you consider consequences for irresponsible gun ownership to be allowed by the Second Amendment or would you see it as a violation of Constitutional rights?

[jay.tee]

Any law that places the responsibility for the gun and anything done with it on the owner.

You’ve already whiffed on the “reasonable” criteria with your desire to burden gun owners with responsibility found nowhere else in our society.

For instance, if someone steals your F150, goes on a bender, and mows down a five-year old, you are not responsible.

[Nelson]

Yes, but the purpose of an F-150 isn’t to kill. The purpose of a gun is to kill. Therefore the owner needs to be more responsible, since they own a thing which, when used for its purpose, kills things. Often human things.

One way to identify extremists in gun debates is to see who equates cars and guns. That’s the extremist.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"The purpose of a gun is to kill. Therefore the owner needs to be more responsible, since they own a thing which, when used for its purpose, kills things."

Non-sequitur. The purpose is irrelevant. You should lock up your dynamite even though its purpose is to blow holes in rocks or tree stumps out of the ground.

[jay.tee]

One way to identify extremists in gun debates is to see who equates cars and guns. That’s the extremist.

Strike two (and three!). I wasn’t equating the two: one, the RKBA, is a constitutionally guaranteed right, while the other is decidedly not. It isn’t reasonable to subject a constitutionally guaranteed right to more restriction than an activity that is not.

[MarkJawz]

The leftists are sincere when they say they only want reasonable gun laws. They just leave out that they think full civilian bans are reasonable.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, we saw that with the Heller decision. All that talk about "reasonable" gun laws, and the Court overturns the single most extreme gun law in the country, one that let you have a gun grandfathered in if you'd owned it before the law, and kept it disassembled in a safe. Take it out and put it back together, you're a felon.

And they went NUTS.

So now we know: All they ever meant by "reasonable" gun laws was "any gun law we could possibly enact, no matter how oppressive."

[Randal]

The left wants reasonable and unreasonable gun control laws. Pointing out that we also want unreasonable laws does nothing to suggest that we don't want reasonable ones.

The right wants no gun control laws at all, not even the reasonable ones. Only the right is against reasonsble gun control.

[jay.tee]

Ok, I’ll bite: what are some examples of these “reasonable” gun control laws you cite?

[Randal]

Step 1 would probably be to import a bunch of safety regulations from the military, like maybe some training requirements. Nothing onerous, just stuff your dad could teach you.

[jay.tee]

How do you define the criteria? Who certifies you pass? How much does it cost? How often do you have to recert? How do you protect the information of those who have passed?

Not looking to delve into specifics here, but rather to illustrate “reasonable” has a ton of grey area. And politicians of all stripes love to take advantage of those grey areas for their own ideological purposes.

[Randal]

This is the point of legislatures and courts.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Stuff like that was not practiced decades ago. I think it is a response to decades of continuously increasing pro-gun extremism, laced with threats of lawless gun violence if any regulations get enforced.

I deplore both the state conduct, and the unreasonable extremism that fosters it. I think that would be the right stance for responsible pro-gun advocates, but see little sign of agreement in comments on this web site.

If you see gun enforcement which strikes you as extreme, and bristle in response, and threaten gun violence, you ought at least to wonder whether conduct like yours somewhat accounts for what you object to.

[Absaroka]

"Stuff like that was not practiced decades ago"

The Sullivan Act was passed in 1911.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, just like Jim Crow was a response to decades of continually increasing pro-abolition extremism. [/sarc]

[Malika la Maize]

It started with a comment about a graduate student’s lunch, a creamy Indian dish called palak paneer made with spinach and cheese, that he was heating in an office microwave in the anthropology department at the University of Colorado, Boulder.

“Oof, that’s pungent,” the student, Aditya Prakash, recalled an administrative assistant telling him. Mr. Prakash, an Indian citizen who was studying for a Ph.D. in cultural anthropology, said the administrative assistant then told him there was a rule against microwaving strong-smelling food in the office.

Mr. Prakash said it was the kind of remark that made many Indians in the West afraid to open their lunches in public spaces. When he told the administrative assistant that he did not appreciate her comment, she started shouting at him, he said. Two days later, he and four other students, including his partner, Urmi Bhattacheryya, who was also studying for a Ph.D. in cultural anthropology, responded by heating Indian food in the same microwave.

Thus began what Mr. Prakash and Ms. Bhattacheryya described in a federal civil rights lawsuit as a “pattern of escalating retaliation” that ended with the revocation of their doctoral funding.

This month, Mr. Prakash and Ms. Bhattacheryya received their master’s degrees as part of a settlement that paid them a total of $200,000 to resolve the lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver in September, their lawyer said. The couple, who are engaged, have been living in India since October.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/23/us/palak-paneer-indian-food-racism-settlement.html

What BS, shouldn’t have got a dime.

[Brett Bellmore]

I have a hard time imagining somebody objecting to microwaving Indian food. But I might be a bit biased on the topic, I just made chicken curry with Shawarma rice a couple days ago.

[Frank Drackman]

You're like the people who love Mayonnaise, not being able to imagine someone who is literally sickened by it. Unlike Peanut Allergies (where actually the best thing is to make the kid eat Peanuts, which are delicious)
Mayonnaise-disgust is an Evil-lutionary protective trait, when man was invented, 5-6 thousand years ago, those who went around eating nasty purulent looking matter didn't produce as many offspring as the more finicky Hunter/Gatherers i.e. Me.
Seriously, how can you eat that crap? It's not only disgusting, it's unhealthy.

Frank

[ducksalad]

Here you go

https://www.masalaherb.com/curry-mayonnaise/

[Frank Drackman]

Mayonnaise is my friggin Kryptonite, I can smell it from a hundred yards away, if they ever ban it I can get a side job sniffing it out in peoples luggage.
The traditionally worst smell in Surgery is the Incision and Drainage of a Perirectal Abscess (ICD10 K61.1, or in the Southern Vernacular, a "Pone") you get that Eau de' burning Feces, Pus, Skin, it's really a good way to determine if one's cut out (get it? "cut out"??) to be a Surgeon.
I loved that smell, that wasn't what "directed" my career to the other side of the "Blood/Brain Barrier".
That being said, Mayonnaise is worse.

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Admittedly I grew up on Miracle Whip, not mayo, but the real stuff isn't that bad. Good thing, too, because the South's main Duke's plant is within walking distance...

[Krayt]

Pound for pound, Indian food is the most flavorful on the planet. Every culture has wonderful dishes, but they have a surfeit.

Here, it can depend on the restaurant. One has the most delicious mutter paneer, another it's a thin, watery gruel.

Every time I hear an American aping some tasteless joke about Indian food, I think what an ignorant buffoon. Like a college student ordering pizza and saying, "Hold the fungus!"

[Malika la Maize]

I’m a Chana masala guy. Great stuff.

But Indian food can be pungent for many Americans unfamiliar with it. That he went from there to intentionally provoking the AA is being a dick.

[Frank Drackman]

I'll admit the Buffalo Burger I had at "Injun Joe's Grill & Poker Emporium" in Pine Ridge SD was pretty tasty, but I don't think that's the "Indian" food you're thinking of.

[Malika la Maize]

So I got a titled “Buffalo Burger” on a vacation recently. I thought it was going to be burger with spicy buffalo sauce. It was instead a burger made of buffalo meat, not spicy at all.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't order the "Special Hot Dog" at a Korean BBQ

[Malika la Maize]

Ok, that was good.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I thought so too but people judge me when I say so.

[Malika la Maize]

Context is tough.

[TwelveInchPianist]

So was the hot dog.

[Frank Drackman]

They really are eating the Dogs. (but they're So good!)

[Bwaaah]

TIP: "So was the hot dog."

Next time, give the "House Special Puppy" a try. Not so tough.

[Brett Bellmore]

Hope they didn't overcook it. Buffalo is basically done when it gets a high fever, should always be eaten rare.

My neighbor back in Michigan raised buffalo, (Really, "beefalo", buffalo/cattle hybrids.) and I ate a lot of it.

Mainly because of that one time her fence broke and her herd got into my fruit orchard; Buffalo LOVE fruit tree bark. She was so horrified she really loaded me down with the stuff.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"What BS, shouldn’t have got a dime."

Hey, I agree, assuming the summary is correct. Escalating a stupid office dispute shouldn't be protected.

But the school was probably sympathetic to the students.

I mean, in a normal environment, people would be taught that if someone doesn't like the smell of your food in the microwave, you can either microwave your food somewhere else, or politely explain to them that you need to eat and unfortunately microwaves emit the odor of the food they are heating.

But these kids where probably taught that complaining about the smell of foreign food was a microaggression, and that the proper response to a microaggression was to call it out, stage a protest, etc.

[Malika la Maize]

The opposite according to the article.

Whatever Newsmax tells you universities don’t just genuflect at diversity, administrative assistants are much beloved.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fair enough, although I stand by the second part of my comment, which I added after you responded.

[Malika la Maize]

Sure, they’re dumb and obliviously entitled.

[Jmaie]

Palak paneer is pungent?

[LexAquilia]

Anyone who refuses to see the abject judicial corruption and bias going on in MN especially when contrasted out conservatives get treated by judges, is an enemy to your freedom and liberty.

When you're throw in Democrat gulags, they won't care. When they come after your children and your freedom, they are not your neighbors, but your oppressors. Further, as we're finding out, many of them are openly coordinating with the Democrat party and foreign consulates, like Mexico to target and undermine lawful government activity.

Leftwing activists are working with party officials and foreign governments to undermine our nation and our sovereignty and to continue to defraud and oppress us.

This is a war. Make no mistake about it. Agitators with political power and foreign influence are attacking our way of life.

[Krayt]

Even if I agreed with ICE tactics, and I do not, though I have written of the mathematical goals of census changes, bragging about some mysterious power to go into homes without a warrant should give anyone pause.

[LexAquilia]

If you're under a deportation order, do you get to stay in America so long as you don't answer the door and invite ICE in to deport you?

[ducksalad]

No. You just get to stay until a real Article III judge signs a warrant based on probable cause supported by an oath or affidavit.

Until this issue made the news a few days ago, I didn't understand why the signs outside businesses here said no ICE entry without "a warrant signed by a judge".

Apparently they already knew about the criminals in the executive branch purporting to give themselves warrants.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"You just get to stay until a real Article III judge signs a warrant..."

IIUC it's usually a magistrate judge.

[ducksalad]

Sorry if I used imprecise terminology. What I mean is a judge not controlled by the executive branch.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Fair enough.

[David Nieporent]

IIUC it's usually a magistrate judge.

Yes. But even a state judge can issue a warrant (at least under the federal rules of criminal procedure); the key factor is that it must be a neutral judge rather than a member of the executive branch purporting to authorize itself to do something.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Just pointing out that it doesn't have to be an Art. III judge.

[LexAquilia]

So the deportation order can't be enforced without another judge's permission?

That seems retarded.

[ducksalad]

You're confused in several different ways:

1. What do you mean by "another" judge?

2. At any given time there are many thousands of valid, judge-signed arrest warrants and deportation orders. Not just for immigration, but for rape, robbery, murder, etc. That doesn't mean the cops can enter any house they like just in case someone is there. That's why to enter a home a warrant must "particularly describe the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized". Do the deportation orders specify the house to be searched?

3. It's simultaneously confused, dishonest, and asinine to claim that a requirement to follow due process means laws and orders "can't be enforced'. The generic term in logic is "false dichotomy" but a more specific term would the "jackbooted thug's fallacy".

[Absaroka]

"It's simultaneously confused, dishonest, and asinine to claim that a requirement to follow due process means laws and orders "can't be enforced'."

That's a peeve of mine. When you read 'police arrest 27 year old with 11 prior felony convictions', there is a problem, and that problem isn't too much due process, because ... 11 prior convictions. Due process isn't to protect criminals, it's to protect the rest of us, so we don't get falsely convicted or killed in a wrong door raid.

[jb]

You do if ICE can't be bothered to go to a judge to get an actual warrant.

By the way, what's a "Democrat gulag?" Seems like a lot of hyperbole for someone who supports sending people not convicted of any crime straight to CECOT.

[Malika la Maize]

To be clear, Lex/Harriman/Chuck has openly called here for gassing political opponents. As most of the far right is he’s being totally tribal and disingenuous.

[Sarcastr0]

Hearing ICE shot and killed another guy. They shot him a lot of times. After wrestling him to the ground.
8 on 1, hard to see the need for lethal force.

DHS says he was armed, which is legal. They don't say he was making a move to use the gun.

There is video; I'm not gonna watch it.

Might take a vacation off here for a bit.

[John 4]

If you need a pick-me-up today, just read the Gaza Board of Peace charter again. It's hilarious!

[Absaroka]

"which is legal"

That kinda depends on who you are, and what you might be doing with the gun.

I watched one (the?) video. There was certainly a tussle going on. I don't have any conclusions about what was going on, other than to say resisting arrest is not smart, and resisting when you are armed is really, really not smart. I hope there are badge cams; in this day and age there isn't much excuse to not have one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Suppose you were both legally armed, and being mistakenly apprehended by ICE. How much not-resisting do you think you would have to do to make yourself feel safe? How about if you were being kicked in the head while not resisting?

I think your comment gets the emphasis wrong.

[Absaroka]

You do you, but my advice is do less resisting that that gentleman did. None at all is my advice.

You can find completely unjustified police shootings. Whether this most recent one is one of those or not is not something I can tell from the video I saw.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — Your advice seems to demand unreasonable self-constraint from an innocent person being kicked in the head. Unwillingness to concede that evades a duty to denounce unjustified head-kicking as morally culpable.

I say that while believing you do think it is morally culpable, but that you remain unclear about implications. For instance, why doesn't a LEO accompanying another LEO who unlawfully begins to kick a shackled and constrained prisoner in the head have a duty to shoot the other LEO to protect the prisoner?

I have never seen a comment from you which makes me suppose you would endorse such a duty, and especially not ahead of leniency for a LEO who alleged a subjective opinion his life was in danger led him to use deadly violence which later investigation proved unjustified.

I too have seen no evidence sufficient to allow me to form a judgment about what happened in the most recent Minneapolis shooting. Until I know more, I will withhold judgment. If no more relevant evidence ever emerges, I may form a judgment based on
unlikelihood that good faith investigation would not supply it. If an announcement is sooner made that no more evidence will ever be supplied, perhaps we will both know what to make of that.

I count you one of the better commenters here, but when the subject of guns comes up, I wish you were both more broadly accepting of varied contexts, and more self-critical of your own pro-gun tendency.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"I don't have any conclusions about what was going on, other than to say resisting arrest is not smart, and resisting when you are armed is really, really not smart."

It's not clear (to me) from the video that he's resisting. Hopefully there will be for video out. A scenario where they were trying to take down a resisting subject and he became a threat because of the gun is consistent with the video, but it's not dispositive.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Looking at the video a few more times, it looks like they have him on the ground, he is struggling, then he gets back up, at which point he was shot.

[kimoser22]

watching the pink jacket lady video on reddit (google) it looks like they kept pepper spraying the guy in the face and he was probably spazzing because water is wet and spraying a chemical designed to cause pain will cause people to react as if they are in pain...don't know if one of them saw his arms going near this gun and didn't know that he was open carrying so just saw an arm going near a gun and panicked and shot and then everyone else saw the first agent firing and reacted to that by shooting....also was icy out so he could have been slipping.

[Absaroka]

"It's not clear (to me) from the video that he's resisting."

That's possible. I think I'd be little limper. They usually want you on the ground. But absolutely too early to know. I can't tell if he grabbed his gun, or they saw it and panicked, or what went down prior, etc. Or for that matter, if he had a gun. I'm sure folks will go through the vid frame by frame and hopefully badge cams or other video.

[John 4]

“That's possible. I think I'd be little limper.”

New MAGA murder justification: insufficient limpness. Impressive!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Yeah, he walked into that one. But if you're armed, even legally, you can't be fighting with the cops.

[TwelveInchPianist]

And if the coverage is accurate, he may not have been legally armed. DHS says he didn't have an ID on him, but per MN law you have to carry your permit and an ID when you carry.

[Absaroka]

Yes, and: "A violation of this paragraph (the requirement to carry the permit -ed) is a petty misdemeanor. The fine for a first offense must not exceed $25".

Jaywalking fines can run $25 to $100.

So not a particularly yuuuuge crime.

[bernard11]

I wonder if one of you talking about the video could be so kind as to provide a link.

Much appreciated.

[Absaroka]

The angle I saw is partway through the CNN clip here.

Another angle posted below. That links to others.

Early days, but it A)looks like ICE was being really aggressive and B)I don't see any support for the 'he was approaching with a gun in an assassination' narrative.

One of the links purports to show ICE tackling bystanders to confiscate their phones. If so, that's a really really bad look.

[myself]

Here's the issue with resisting.

When one or more aggressive men start tackling you and trying to force you to the ground resisting is very much an instinctive response.

Not resisting takes tremendous self control. Even more so if you're protesting the aggressive men for doing things you think are unjustified and immoral.

So to claim that "resisting arrest" is a valid pretext for an officer killing someone is pretty much a claim that officers can decide to kill people at will.

[TwelveInchPianist]

It's certainly correct that we should have better procedures about how cops are allowed to arrest people.

[myself]

If you watch the video (one of them closely) you see an ICE agent takes away a gun (seemingly the victim's) moments before the shooting.

This badly contradicts the narrative that a) he posed an imminent threat, b) the officers didn't have him significantly restrained.

[Estragon]

I’m sure the local Brave Patriots will be along to tell us how richly this person deserved to be shot and killed in the street any moment now.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is it part of the swarm tactic one guy going for the gun?

Of course, the other side of this is a possibility of suicide by a cop.

[Frank Drackman]

You don't want to watch the Video, it might not give the answer that you want it to. ("Oh Well" Guitar Riff)

[Riva]

Well, Sarcastr0, it's legal for an illegal alien to carry a concealed weapon? who knew?

And, while obviously more facts need to be learned, taking said weapon out while being detained by ICE agents should seem to cross the line of legality even in the mind of a rent-a-troll.

[Magister]

The man had a legal permit to carry, is a U.S. citizen and lives in Minneapolis, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara.

Among the facts that need to be unlearned: not an illegal alien.

[Riva]

Well I did note the facts were not all in, and they're still not. Citizen or illegal, an armed individual wrestling with ICE agents still raises some questions. Was this another (paid?) agitator intent on obstructing federal officers?

[myself]

You're mistaken.

The protestor did not draw his gun.

In fact, an ICE agent drew the protestors gun, and carried it away from the confrontation.

At which point another ICE agent shot the now unarmed protestor.

[Riva]

Uh huh. I'm sure that's a fair representation of the facts. In public, with multiple witnesses and a disarmed and defenseless whatever he was, and ICE agents just decided to execute him. Who's your source? Don Lemon? Antifa?

Incidentally, armed protestor? Democrats called themselves something else in the 1860s as I recall.

[myself]

Here's the video that clearly shows the protestor being disarmed (which I'm sure you'll explain away somehow).

Cop A sees the gun, pulls it out and leaves the confrontation.

Cop B sees the gun, draws his own gun as Cop A disarms the suspect, then he walks around and shoots the now unarmed protestor.

As usual, DHS is lying about what happened.

[Riva]

No need for your BS. Frey and Walz are well able to instigate more violence on their own.

It does seem that circumstances indicate that the Insurrection Act is required before more violence ensues from these (paid?) agitators.

[myself]

Damn, the video is so damning that even Riva couldn't contradict it!

[Riva]

There is no video.

[myself]

The page stated that it was removed by a moderator (as videos of murders often are).

But there's countless copies out there including on the NYTimes.

[Riva]

Interestingly enough some do actually seem to dispute your narrative:

At 9:05 AM CT, as DHS law enforcement officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against an illegal alien wanted for violent assault, an individual approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun, seen here.

The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming.

Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics on scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject but was pronounced dead at the scene.

The suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID—this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.

About 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement on the scene, crowd control measures were deployed for the safety of the public and law enforcement.

This situation is evolving, and more information is forthcoming

https://x.com/DHSgov/status/2015115351797780500

[David Nieporent]

Remember the #1 rule of Trump: they lie and they lie and they lie. None of the essential facts of what they tweeted are true. He was lawfully armed originally, but was on the ground and had already been disarmed by ICE before he was murdered.

[Riva]

I'm sure David N. has opined honestly and inoffensively on something at some point in his life, just haven't come across it yet. If anyone has a record of that, pass it on. Call it morbid curiosity.

[LexAquilia]

Might take a vacation off here for a bit.

What a melodramatic douche. You're like those tiktok AWFL's staring and crying while some headline goes under them.

[myself]

They don't say he was making a move to use the gun.

They can't because an ICE agent took the gun away moments before they opened fire.

[Stephen Lathrop]

But they could say the shooter was unaware that the gun had been taken. Subjective mental sates to justify homicides have always been a safe investment, but lately trending up.

[myself]

I'm sure they will, despite the fact that the discovery of the gun and the disarming were pretty much the same time.

It really looks like the ICE agent saw the gun, decided he was going to shoot the protestor, then took his time to move into position so he could safely do so.

He saw that the gun was removed, but it didn't change his plan.

[Frank Drackman]

On August 20, 2005, in a private funeral at Owl Farm, Thompson's ashes were fired from a cannon. This was accompanied by red, white, blue, and green fireworks—all to the tune of Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" and Bob Dylan's "Mr. Tambourine Man". The cannon was placed atop a 153-foot (47 m) tower that had the shape of a double-thumbed fist clutching a peyote button, a symbol originally used in his 1970 campaign for sheriff of Pitkin County, Colorado. The plans for the monument were initially drawn by Thompson and Steadman, and were shown as part of an Omnibus program on the BBC titled Fear and Loathing in Gonzovision (1978). It is included as a special feature on the second disc of the 2004 Criterion Collection DVD release of Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, and labeled as Fear and Loathing on the Road to Hollywood.

According to his widow, Anita, the $3 million funeral was funded by actor Johnny Depp, who was a close friend of Thompson's. Depp told the Associated Press, "All I'm doing is trying to make sure his last wish comes true. I just want to send my pal out the way he wants to go out." An estimated 280 people attended, including Steadman, U.S. Senators John Kerry and George McGovern, 60 Minutes correspondents Ed Bradley and Charlie Rose, actors Jack Nicholson, John Cusack, Bill Murray, Benicio del Toro, Sean Penn, and Josh Hartnett, and musicians Lyle Lovett, John Oates, Jimmy Buffett and David Amram.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Where were your GOP heroes?

[Frank Drackman]

Probably working, even if I wasn't I hate funerals (although I'd have made an exception for (Dr) Thompsons) except for McGovern, everyone else was a Hollywood Phony (maybe not Jimmy Buffet) they and John "Lurch" Kerry epitomized everything Hunter hated about the "Establishment".
Loved how he'd go on "Latenight" so drunk he could barely speak and was still more entertaining than Letterman.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

So let me get this straight:

The people you hate showed up and liked your hero

The people you like didn’t.

It’s the former you want to attack.

Deranged.

[Frank Drackman]

No, I only "hate" Peoples who are really despicable and awful, Ham-Ass, Al-Kaida, Alabama Fans.....
I'm joking, I'm sure there's a few Al-Kaidas who aren't so bad after a few drinks.
Just that except maybe for McGovern, most of the people who showed up for HST's funeral HE would have hated.
Especially that prick Kerry, funny how he only came out against Vietnam when it had become the popular position.
HST was for the 2d Amendment (when your final act is to have your Corporeal Remains blasted out of a Cannon.....) and for REAL Drug Legalization, not just the Pot, the Heroin, the LSD, and the Peyote, which served as the Logo when he ran for Sheriff.
And not for some bullshit "Medical" or "Religious" use, but for why Jay-Hey put them here in the first place, to stone us to the Be-jesus belt.
Also loved fast cars, motorcycles, and Tobacco, no way HST would be caught dead in a Prius.
I liked McGovern, both parents voted for him, (nothing to do with his Political Beliefs, but because Milhouse tried to kill my Dad over Hanoi) He actually had the humility, after his Senate service, managing a DC Hotel, to admit how much of a hassle all of the bullshit he'd supported was for business.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Deranged.

Sure recently disaffected liberals furrow their brows at this comment!

[Frank Drackman]

Deranged?
It was your Sleepy Joe who bragged he was from a "Slave State" (he wasn't) supported a law that imprisoned a generation of Young Black Men (the ones who survived his "Pro-Death" stance) for possession of amounts of Cocaine that Hunter wouldn't move an inch for, and was amazed that Barry Hussein was "Clean and Articulate, I mean that's a Story Book (Man!)

Frank

[Bwaaah]

I had a Prius. My brother-in-law used to greet me in his driveway, "Oh...look...it's the vagina car."

As I liked to say to the ladies (pointing downward at my groin), "Small dick. Big Prius. Who wants a piece of this?"

I was quite the man.

[Malika la Maize]

Ok, so I know the MAGAns here think I’m a hopeless leftist, which of course they define as anyone who questions anything Dear Leader wants.

But for the non-cultists, reading today’s news, WTF is up with the “Minnesota General Strike?”

I get Minnesota has been targeted for Dear Leader’s current whims, but closing shit down there only hurts MN not the Feds. Or am I missing something?

[Stephen Lathrop]

You are missing at least three things:

1. The Twin Cities area has already suffered extensive commercial and civil constraints imposed by ICE. With schools closed and stores empty of customers, it may not make that much difference to take it the next step.

2. The, "only hurting themselves," argument always crops up when authoritarian civil disorder lies behind massive disruptions. What that objection misses is that it is sometimes possible to create responses so uncontrollable, and so politically unacceptable, that the only way for authorities to respond is to redress grievances, for want of any means to further suppress violence, or political resistance running out of control, or whatever.

3. General strikes—however rare and short-lived—tend to compel earnest engagement from government officials, who may otherwise be powerless to deliver the order needed to quell losses their own constituencies quickly begin to suffer.

[Malika la Maize]

3. They’re already fully on board.

[Bwaaah]

No snark intended here. I found the idea of a strike befuddling. I think it would appeal to a relatively small number of people who believe protest is itself a noble act, and who clearly have little concern about their next paycheck. (That last part rules out most people.)

[mulched]

1. ICE has imposed no commercial or civil constraints on the Twin Cities area.

2. Minnesota has no way to redress its grievances against ICE, besides the Fort Sumter option that Walz and Frey are calling for.

3. The feds do not give a damn about the "general strike."

[Bunny495]

What you are missing is whoever came up with this foolishness has shit for brains.

[Randal]

A general strike practically forces participation. Once someone has taken an action, they're likely to see themselves as someone who takes actions, and then take another action. In other words, people want to think that their behavior reflects their beliefs, even if the causality isn't really there. So, you can affect people's beliefs by influencing their behavior. Everyone who stayed home on Friday is now a protester.

It's the same logic that underlies push polls.

[ThePublius]

Official Zohran Mamdani Drinking Game:

Everytime Zohran mentions a free government program, chug somebody else's beer.

[Malika la Maize]

No government program is free, this is a disservice to taxpayers.

Of course, I’ve never said a good word about Mandami (unlike Trump).

[Frank Drackman]

Those Minnesotans really get upset when you add on that Tru-Coat.

[Bunny495]

One thing often overlooked about Fargo is how much humor (even if a lot of it was dark) there was. The kidnapped wife with the hood over her head running around like a chicken with its head cut off and smashing into a tree had me laughing out loud, even if at one level it was tragic.

[Frank Drackman]

"Whoops!!!!!!"

[Bunny495]

"The Bottom Line: Pemex is essentially a person with a maxed-out credit card and a huge mortgage payment due tomorrow, who is still buying lunch for a neighbor. The U.S. is essentially the "bank" in this scenario, telling Mexico that if they want their credit line extended, they need to stop the "charity" immediately."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/mexican-president-sheinbaum-reportedly-reviewing-whether-to-continue-oil-shipments-to-cuba-due-to-potential-reprisals-from-trump-admin/ar-AA1UTkcJ

[Randal]

Great news for gun control! Today DHS reiterated that anyone carrying a gun can and will be executed on the spot by federal and/or state officers.

[hobie]

Hayseeds: "Kyle Rittenhouse was just exercising his Second Amendment rights swaggering around armed protecting the people and businesses during a protest"

Also Hayseeds: "Leftist Second Amender Rittenhouse simulacrums swaggering around armed protecting the people and businesses during a protest...kill them all!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Randall, we don’t know the facts yet.

I will add one aside — one of the reasons that Maine went constitutional carry, no longer requiring concealed weapon permits, was the large number of people who inadvertently concealed carry in cold weather as their weapon wound up concealed by their layers of clothing.

It’s 8° below zero and he had a concealed weapon permit. What’s the chance that the average gun owner wouldn’t be technically carrying concealed in weather like this? How did they know he was armed? Give it a choice I wouldn’t be half undressed in this weather!

I’m wondering, seriously wondering, what he did…

[Frank Drackman]

Actually its better news for 2d Amendment Supporters as the DemoKKKrats suddenly support peoples rights to concealed carry in Pubic.

[Randal]

Yes, we don't think they should be killed.

Is that how your mind works? Either you support what someone's doing or you kill them? Explains a lot.

[LexAquilia]

You are intentionally lying to target a lawful government function.

I am reporting you to Jack Smith's team for indictment.

[David Nieporent]

See, you're not even a competent troll. You have to say crazy new things to get attention, not repeat the same boring stuff that isn't going to get a rise out of anyone.

[Mr. Bumble]

I've been running errands prior to snowmegedon at just checked in so haven't looked up thread yet to see if this has been noted.
There has been another fatal shooting in Minneapolis.
Walz activated the NG about a week ago but hasn't seemed to deploy them yet.
Guess he is daring Trump to invoke the insurrection act.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Someone either the police, chief or mayor, both are so insignificant I can’t tell which is which, is politely asking people not to burn down the city.

It’s eight below zero there right now, it should be a blizzard by dark, it’ll be interesting to see what happens then.

At best, it’s a licensed gun owner, making an incredibly bad decision, and at worst, he actually drew on them. Either way FAFO.

[hobie]

Bro, you keep breaking into homes with masks on, quasi-civilian clothing, and no warrant...people are going to start exercising the Second Amendment. Even if they were to accept the intruders as ICE agents, knowing now that they might probably be killed by a force that likes to do it and has no consequences...they might just have to open fire out of sheer self-preservation.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bro, this is the middle of a city street.

At the best, at the absolute best, it was incredibly poor judgement on the part of the man who was shot. Exactly why would you take a gun to protest like that?

Exactly why?

[hobie]

Because carrying around a gun is thrilling and projects power. If he was instead scared shitless about his personal safety, he wouldn't have been at the protest to begin with.

[Dr. Ed 2]

As I understand it, homeland security was attempting to detain a legitimate, bad guy, and was set up on by whistle blowing hoodlums. Why they’re not similarly arrested for interfering with law enforcement is beyond me, but that’s not happening.

As I understand it, there was an incident involving a man with a Minnesota CCW permit who was openly displaying a handgun and was in possession of two clips of ammunition. A federal officer shot and killed him. Allegedly because the officer was in fear for his own life.

It’s 8° below zero, Fahrenheit, in Minneapolis right now. City officials are politely asking people not to burn the city down.

Three things. First, we don’t know exactly what happened and hopefully there might be some actual video of it. However, FAFO comes to mine, where I’m from, interfering with police officers making an arrest is not a wise thing to do. Likewise, discretion is the better part of valor, just because you can carry a gun somewhere, doesn’t mean you should.

Second, I suggest this needs to be viewed in the context of January 6. Imagine a legally armed, mega person, confronted the police and was fairly shot, or an Ashley Babbitt, who wasn’t even armed. How is this different?

And third, as the Supreme Court deals with the second amendment, I fear this is gonna be much deeper than just we hate Trump. We’re all so what’s out?

One other thing: some of us have been asking what about when, not if, an ice guy get shot. For all we know, the dead guy may have drawn his weapon and pointed at an ice guy — we don’t know, either way, if he did.

[hobie]

"Second, I suggest this needs to be viewed in the context of January 6."

No. This needs to be squarely squared with Kyle Rittenhouse. Or the mask-hating patriots that lined the halls of Michigan's statehouse with their long rifles. They all FA'ed, but the police never gave them the FO. And they were praised as heroes by the hayseeds.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Long rifles aren’t as much of a threat because it takes longer to bring them to bear.

[hobie]

I always thought the same thing. Yet countless body cam videos have taught me that when the police get into a shooting scenario, they invariably toss their pistols and take up the rifle. It's especially bizarre to me when they'll do so even when they have to stalk the rooms of a cramped house. It makes no sense to me.

[Dr. Ed 2]

In terms of the time necessary to get a shot off without the victim, being observant of that.

[Frank Drackman]

But Bears with Long Rifles, watch out!

[hobie]

Cocaine Bear II: This time...he's armed!

[John 4]

There are several videos already, you absolute bootlicking clown of a human being.

[windycityattorney]

You are on the internet goof ball. Go find the videos. Yes, ICE officers are going to be shot. Or beat to death with a shovel or a bat or whatever people find.

ICE and border patrol need to get the f out of MN immediately. They currently outnumber the local city police force. But they don't outnumber the people who live there. And they are persona non grata.

This is of course rather predictable. Perhaps even intended. But when the avg soccer mom wants to hang a fed agent from the nearest light pole; the only rational choice here is for the feds to go.

[Frank Drackman]

Thanks Bull Conner

[Life of Brian]

ICE and border patrol need to get the f out of MN immediately. They currently outnumber the local city police force. But they don't outnumber the people who live there. And they are persona non grata.

Better let us have our way, or buckle in for the insurrection? Yoikes.

[windycityattorney]

They need to go. They are not wanted there and just assassinated another citizen. But its all good because its a 'blue city'? Fuck that bullshit. If that midget bitch Bovino wants to watch ICE vehicles burn, keep pouring gas on this bullshit fire and gaslight America about domestic terrorists. They disarmed him, beat and then murdered this guy who was trying to help a girl ICE assaulted. The vids are already out there. Its straight up murder.

Again.

Its cold here in the midwest. And ICE can and will burn.

[Frank Drackman]

You think ICE is bad? Wait until the 10th Mountain Division boys show up, a bunch of Pollocks from Indiana and Rednecks from East Kentucky with no future, bad attitudes and itchy trigger fingers.
They don't "Play well with others" is what I'm saying to you.

Frank

[JohnSmith97]

Good to see when the left shows its true colors.

The "good" part is getting those here illegally out of the country.
The "bad" part is that many (D) run places have decided that fed laws don't apply in their city/state.

Not an issue when a (D) is running things, since they just pretend that immigration law doesn't exist.

Just more insurrection from the left when they don't get their way, another day ending in y..

[myself]

Looks like an officer removed the weapon shortly before the shooting.

Which means that a group of officers having tackled a protestors, one of them then decided to shoot him.

or an Ashley Babbitt, who wasn’t even armed

Babbitt was leading an angry violent mob though a barrier towards fleeing legislators. One of the few instances where the officer shooting was very justified.

It's sad that Trump's lies cost Ashley Babbitt her life.

[jay.tee]

Can you link to the video that shows an officer removing his gun before shooting him?

RE Ashli Babbitt, it’s all on video and those videos expose your lies. She was not a threat to anyone, she wasn’t armed, she was bookended by police, and she was in a vulnerable and restricted position (stuck in the window frame) when Byrd killed her. He could have easily detained her.

[myself]

Sure, the shooter sees the gun and draws his weapon as he watches the other officer remove the gun from the victim. So he could clearly see the victim was now unarmed.

As for Babbitt, she was trying to lead an angry mob through a barricade. If the officer didn't shoot her the mob very well could have broken through and then you'd be looking at a lot more bodies as the handful of officers are facing an enraged mob.

And no, I don't think detaining her was remotely feasible in that circumstance.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So he could clearly see the victim was now unarmed."

How could he see that?

[myself]

By staring at the gun as the other officer took it away.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You mean if I see someone take a dollar out of his pocket and hand it to someone, that means he's broke?

[ducksalad]

It's a good shoot unless the victim was stark naked and standing in front of a full-length mirror.

[TwelveInchPianist]

In some cases especially if he's naked and standing in front of a full length mirror.

But if he's armed and fighting, and you forcibly disarm him and he's still fighting, that doesn't mean he's no longer a threat.

[jay.tee]

That’s a screenshot, not a video.

As for Babbitt, she was trying to lead an angry mob through a barricade. If the officer didn't shoot her the mob very well could have broken through and then you'd be looking at a lot more bodies as the handful of officers are facing an enraged mob.

I can tell you haven’t bothered to watch the video. Only one person at a time could fit through that opening. Meaning, no mob was breaking through. You’re also completely ignoring all the other LEOs there who could have suppressed your hypothetical mob.

In short, Byrd used his weapon in an unjustified and unsafe manner just like he had done at least twice previously.

[myself]

It was a video until it got removed, possibly because it showed someone being murdered.

By has a breakdown and it's easy enough to find the video elsewhere.

The agent in question was acting very aggressively to the extent that one of the primary video takers was freaked out well before the shooting.

He was then looking right at the gun being taken off the victim before he got into position and fired.

Even if you somehow think the agent missed the victim being disarmed, he could clearly see the victim wasn't holding the gun.

This is worse than the murder of Rachel Good, this actually strikes me as First Degree Murder.

[ducksalad]

Let's not exaggerate. Doesn't first degree murder require premeditation well before the action started? Second degree is what they convicted Chauvin on.

[David Nieporent]

No, it does not require premeditation well before the action started. Of course, different jurisdictions have different definitions of "first degree," so one cannot generalize about that,¹ but where premeditation is required, it never requires that it develop "well before the action." It just requires that it wasn't a sudden act; even a few seconds to reflect before the killing can satisfy premeditation.

¹For example, in NY it's only first degree if the target was in a protected class (cops, other first responders, prison guards, witnesses, judges) or it was a murder for hire or a few other special situations.

[myself]

I don't think there's enough evidence for first degree in the video itself.

But the shooter goes quite a bit out of his way to initiate a physical confrontation with a protester, then gives a pretty heavy pepper spray to the group. Then, the moment he sees a gun he starts calmly draws and then walks into position where he can take a shot (without risking hitting another ICE officer).

I feel like he was someone who say what happened with Renee Good and figured if he had the opportunity he would kill someone.

Is it a stretch? Probably (and you'd need to find a lot of additional evidence to back it up). But it's a lot less of a stretch than the stuff the White House has been saying about the two dead protestors.

[David Nieporent]

Renee, not Rachel. But otherwise, yeah.

[ducksalad]

jay.tee, according to your definition (not asking for a catalog of state laws) is carrying a weapon in your pocket, without using or attempting to use it, "armed" or "not armed"?

Does it matter what kind of weapon it is?
Does it matter if you brought the weapon while committing a crime?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Is a pocketknife a weapon?

[ducksalad]

"Smith was stabbed to death by an unarmed assailant."

I think it depends on the purpose of carrying the knife. If it's for self-defense, it is a weapon.

Which brings me to the next question: is it legitimate for someone who goes out to commit a felony (using force to interfere with a government function) allowed to carry a weapon for self-defense, just in case their victims or law enforcement threaten them?

BTW I don't claim the knife in her pocket, which Byrd could not have seen, was part of the justification for shooting her. I just object to jay.tee trying to make a woman with a history of violence sound like a peaceful protestor. He could have said "not visibly armed" or "not known to be armed".

[TwelveInchPianist]

It turns out this issue was covered on this blog recently.

But in any event, I don't see any evidence the knife was carried for self-defense. It was folded up and in her pocket.

As for history or violence, the only thing I see are charges she was acquitted of. And she wasn't accused of using a pocketknife as a weapon.

It was something else...

[jay.tee]

BTW I don't claim the knife in her pocket, which Byrd could not have seen, was part of the justification for shooting her. I just object to jay.tee trying to make a woman with a history of violence sound like a peaceful protestor. He could have said "not visibly armed" or "not known to be armed".

I did not state she was a “peaceful” protester, nor did I mean to imply it. However, rioting does not bring with it an immediate death penalty. She was not a direct threat to anyone at the moment Byrd shot her.

Did she wield her knife against Byrd, or anyone else? Was Byrd even aware she had a knife? I think you know the answer to both those questions is “no,” again reinforcing she was not an immediate threat.

If he detained her, as he should have, then I’m sure she would have been charged for being armed as well provided the knife was over a certain length (not sure if length of knife matters in DC).

And no, someone may not use a weapon to “defend” themselves from lawful law enforcement. And even if law enforcement isn’t acting lawfully and you’re legitimately defending yourself, the deck is very heavily stacked against you.

[ducksalad]

OK fair enough, I don't really disagree on the knife.

On the threat: If and when the White House gets breached by a crowd with "Hang Trump" signs and the "unarmed" crowd is climbing the last barricade in the hall outside the Oval Office, I expect the Secret Service will shoot someone and we'll all take the predicable sides.

[jay.tee]

If it’s one unarmed person surrounded by Secret Service agents and that person is in a compromised position, I would hope an agent would attempt to apprehend that person and not go straight to deadly force.

I’m very suspicious of any law enforcement shooting and believe, by the nature of their authority and training, they should require a higher level of threat to themselves before they can justifiably use deadly force.

[Dr. Ed 2]

A serious question for people familiar with semi automatic handguns. In subzero weather, would you want to carry the weapon close to your body so I have to keep it warm? My thought is that if you allow it to get down to the ambient temperature of zero it’ll stiffen up the mechanisms and it might not work and you needed it too.

I’m familiar with this in terms of radios and radios where you ABSOLUTELY carry them close to your body so has to keep the batteries warm because batteries don’t work when they’re cold!

The thing I am wondering, is that in cold weather like this, how many rational people would be carrying aside on exposed enough for anyone to see?

[hobie]

Ed's working a tangent for some wiggle room, folks. The deceased CCW was an unserious practitioner that didn't keep his gun warm (like they did at Valley Forge)...he was therefore asking for trouble. Let's see where Ed takes this.

[John 4]

Truly remarkable stuff, watching a human turn into a jellyfish.

[hobie]

How dare you besmirch jellyfish?!

[Frank Drackman]

Is the video that graphic?

[John 4]

As graphic as those “ Videos “ your Mother used to star in back in the “ Old Country “, Frankie.

[Frank Drackman]

You and Queenie with the "Yo Mamma" insults, Your Dad's Anus was so wide it had it's own Zip Code, He was such a Pervert he listed John Wayne Gacy as a Personal Reference, he guzzled so much Cum his CB handle was "Cum Guzzler"

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

I’ve never seen jellyfish in water colder than 50°.

I’ve also tried to get things done outdoors when it’s -8°.

I’ve actually delivered home heating oil in that weather, when it’s so cold that you have to start the vehicle, not only in neutral, but with the clutch down because the transmission oil is so thick, the truck will start moving when you let the clutch up.

I’ve had to keep radios warm, cameras warm, and even flashlights warm so that they work. I’ve also heard that an M1 Garand rifle will often fire a second round when it’s cold. Thinking that someone who might need to rely on a handgun would wanna keep it warm constitutes being a jellyfish?

Do you honestly know what subzero weather is like?

[Bunny495]

While no hand gun really compares to the Sig SG 550 rifle used by the Swiss for reliability in Swiss Alps like conditions there are a few handguns that standout. The Beretta M9/92FS is probably the best example but Glock does have some. All of these have oversized trigger guards and dry lubrication and in the case of the 550 switchable gas regulation. The down side is they all tend to be overweight and bulky to handle.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The other side of it is continually cycling between cold, outdoor air and warm/humid indoor air. You get condensation when you bring the cold metal object into the warm room and then while most of that water will quickly evaporate when you go outdoors again, some will freeze. And while some of that will then sublimate, it doesn’t always…

In the days of computer punchcards, I once had a problem with a deck of cards have been my backpack as I walked across campus in subzero weather proceeded to freeze as they went into the warm, humid, card reader, which made me really popular with the I/O folks.

[LawTalkingGuy]

This is quite a poignant contrast to today’s story:

https://www.startribune.com/detained-by-ice-two-women-became-first-responders-during-agents-seizure/601569667?utm_source=gift

“I was hit so hard with the fact that this man would not do this for me.”

[Life of Brian]

Hey, when you're mindreading, you can make it as poignant as you like!

Seriously, it's great that they helped him, but there's no basis in the story for your quoted language at all, and the notion that the charges against them (apparently serious enough their lawyers told them not to disclose what they were) should have been dropped in return is just silly.

[LawTalkingGuy]

“but there's no basis in the story for your quoted language at all.”

Except for the fact that the agents didn’t realize what was happening to one of their own without their intervention. So it stands to reason they wouldn’t help her if she was having a seizure.

“apparently serious enough their lawyers told them not to disclose what they were.”

Any lawyer would advise anyone not to talk about why they were arrested to the media even if it was for a fine-only minor
misdemeanor.

[Life of Brian]

Except for the fact that the agents didn’t realize what was happening to one of their own without their intervention. So it stands to reason they wouldn’t help her if she was having a seizure.

That's a creative pivot, but that's not at all what she was getting at. Did you read your entire article? After the ode to Renee Good and castigation of the ICE agents for supposedly refusing to render timely aid, she reprises: “We were willing to do for this man, this human, what they were not willing to do for Renee Good."

Any lawyer would advise anyone not to talk about why they were arrested to the media even if it was for a fine-only minor
misdemeanor.

There are plenty of reasons to tell your clients not to talk to the press at all, but when you've cleared them give a full-blown interview like this it seems pretty implausible that it would be particularly risky to include the objective detail of the charges -- unless they're serious.

[Magister]

The quoted language is in the story, quoting the woman who helped the agent having a seizure. The reasonable basis for her conclusion is that the other agents were not able or willing to help their own guy, and other agents had not previously allowed medical assistance to reach Renee Good, and a not unreasonable inference is that the agent having the seizure would behave in the same way as the other agents already had.

[Randal]

Ed's panicking. He never thought that the righteous, gun-wielding American freedom-fighting (white) militiamen would come from the left, being summarily executed by an out-of-control tyrannical Republican government. Let's watch as the cognitive dissonance sets in.

[Frank Drackman]

Are you daft? Lee Harvey Oswald was a Commie, so was Sirhan Sirhan, (the Assassin so nice they named him twice) And I wouldn't call the Homo who murdered Charlie Kirk "Right Wing"

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, Ed’s thinking that if they shot him when he refused to drop the gun, that means he had to be holding the gun, and why would he be holding the gun unless he was the aggressor?

It’s saying that we don’t really know what happened yet, and that perhaps it would be better to find out before we reach conclusions. Right now all we have is speculation as to what is consistent with the facts.

Fact, one, it’s 8° below zero, so unless he was holding the weapon, he would have to have it somewhere on his body. That usually means inside his clothing so how did they know he had a weapon?

Fact 2, if they shot him for not dropping the weapon, why was the weapon in his hand?

Fact 3, why was he even there? Why would they want to arrest him?

It’s not panicking until it gets answers to those questions because it’s entirely possible, I emphasize possible, that he deserve to get shot. For all we know, he may have been a Martian….

[Randal]

why would he be holding the gun unless he was the aggressor?

Quite right. Anyone holding a gun is presumptively an aggressor, so it's reasonable to fear for your life, stand your ground, and shoot them.

[LawTalkingGuy]

For everyone who is in the habit of defending any DHS shooting now, I have the following exercise: Try and imagine a situation where you would conclude the agent committed murder, and you would make no excuses or justifications. Write that down and put it aside and put it out of your mind for awhile. After you’ve defended your 20th or so homicide by a DHS agent, take out the paper and see if you ended up defending, excusing, or justifying anything similar to what you wrote down.

[Bunny495]

Your name is an oxymoron. The law is on Ross's side and there is no way to sugarcoat it. You are not talking about the law, so give it a rest. The legal defense is so easy a 1Y could do it without breaking a sweat. To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. "this is a court of law, not a court of justice"

[John 4]

Well, this ain’t a court, so what’s _your_ excuse?

[LawTalkingGuy]

Yeah I think you should definitely do this exercise.

[Bunny495]

OK what I wrote down was when the law is not on the LEOs side I would not defend them. Sorry my time machine is charging it's batteries so I can't do the rest of the exercise for a while unless I can borrow your time machine.

[Randal]

This ICE stuff will permanently turn all of the baby dudebros who were flirting with conservatism away from Republicans forever. It's their first object lesson in Rule #8 of American politics: Republicans lie about fiscal responsibility in order to get into power and enact their bigoted culture war with violence if necessary. Compare what ICE is doing to "please wear a mask please" and you'll get why.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Not the white ones, they’ve been passed over for jobs too often.

[Randal]

They will figure out that that's yet another lie.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It ain’t.

[Frank Drackman]

I don't get it, Sergeant Major Pepper-Waltz has been calling for ICE to leave for weeks, and now he's complaining that they left after shooting the guy? Love how it's a Peaceful Protest but the Minneapolis PoPo couldn't secure the Crime Scene ummm, because of the Peaceful Protesters.

Frank

[Frank Drackman]

I don't think I got the full Minneapolis Video, I'm missing the part where Wade says "No Jean, No Money!!!"

Frank

[LexAquilia]

The video taken by the lady in pink close to the event shows:

The confrontation began between one ICE Agent and a lady as well as the individual shot -- the Agent was forcefully moving them out of the middle of the street while an ICE operation was underway.

The person shot was actually in the middle of the street directing cars to drive through the enforcement operation -- there were ICE Agents in the street. The guys actions were causing hazards for them.

The agent then pushes a lady down when she stumbles in the snow while going backwards.

The guy comes to he assistance, and the Agent then pushes him and he pushes back.

THAT is an 18 USC 111 violation. I can show you a few dozen videos where similar or less contact at the Capitol produced 18 USC 111 charges, and "defense of others" was not allowed.

Now the guy is subject to arrest for felony assault with physical contact.

That's when the scuffle to restrain and cuff him begins.

Still looking at the video to see where -- as reported by others -- he makes an effort to pull his gun while this is happening.

As with Good -- I don't see a single Officer pull his gun PRIOR to the warning is yelled "HE HAS A GUN".

Again, that's the training.

You idiots claiming it is a clear case of "murder" because he was already "disarmed" are just that -- idiots.

Just admit you have opposed the immigration law enforcement from the beginning.

https://x.com/shipwreckedcrew/status/2015144184894894497

An armed insurgent pushed an officer. FAFO

[grb]

Sadly, this is becoming a common thing:

1. ICE commits murder.
2. This is seen in multiple videos.
3. The Right's authoritarian bootlickers excuse that murder.

Repeat ad nauseam.

[LexAquilia]

In the video he pushes an officer and also reaches for his gun.

What do you think should happen?

btw, shipwreckedcrew is former federal prosecutor.

[windycityattorney]

Liar. You know that multiple angles of what happened are readily available?

If you think that is a good shot then you are clearly incapable of rational thought.

But i do suppose somebody had to drive the trains to auschwitz. Choo choo Lex.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/thatjerkme/status/2015140097033719844

Here is an angle where you can see the rebel SHOT FIRST.

https://x.com/CassandraRules/status/2015158747732049931

The good guys are winning The Battle of Minnesota

[hobie]

The Battle of Los Angeles

'Some of those who work forces
Are the same that bear crosses'

[Kenneth Almquist]

“Here is an angle where you can see the rebel SHOT FIRST.”

Actually, I can’t. I extracted individual frames from your second link, starting at 38.5 seconds, and there is no indication that the victim fired a gun, or, for that matter, was even holding a weapon. Your first link claims that, “You can see the exhaust going away from the suspect and past the kneeling officer's right arm.” That’s false. If it were true, it wouldn’t support your claim because it would be entirely consistent with an ICE officer shooting the victim at point blank range.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, maybe he'll shoot first in the next release.

[hobie]

"THAT is an 18 USC 111 violation. I can show you a few dozen videos where similar or less contact at the Capitol produced 18 USC 111 charges, and "defense of others" was not allowed."

OMG, dude! Are you not only rewriting your narrative of J6, but also actually citing J6 law enforcement to make your case?!

Ha!...HaHa!...Hahahahahahaha!

Made my day, bro.

[LexAquilia]

I copied and pasted what he said. Also, I never said every literal person at J6 is innocent of all crimes, forever and forever. You can look at the disparate treatment, and your side's hypocritical stance.

What a stupid, low IQ, position of yours to hold. It's like things are either black or White.

[kimoser22]

yeah this video angle not looking good for the LEOs

https://www.reddit.com/r/law/comments/1qlvdx6/new_video_of_124_ice_shooting_shows_victim_had/?share_id=9RvMYQ0XgZpRpofJYOy1h&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

[LexAquilia]

Watch the video that shows him pushing the agent and reaching for his gun. Not looking good for the rebels.

[Life of Brian]

I didn't see any still shots in the Reddit thread (maybe there are some buried somewhere in the 7500 comments; feel free to shoot me a link if you see any), so I downloaded the video so I could advance it frame by frame.

It does look like he has both hands on the ground around 0:31, but he's still actively struggling and trying to get up and the shots don't happen until 0:40. A couple of people walk in front of the shot between 0:32 and 0:35, but when they clear around 0:36 through the shots at 0:40 I see one of his hands flailing around and don't see the other hand at all.

Let me know if you're seeing it differently -- there's definitely a lot of motion in a short amount of time across a small number of pixels. But just at a high level, if he really was laying there with both hands on the ground, it wouldn't have taken 4-5 people to try to restrain him.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/ThePatriotOasis/status/2015135418392478047

Here's another angle, much clearer. He's fighting with them and reaches for his weapon.

He's a leftwing agitator rebelling against our government. Good riddance.

[windycityattorney]

Hi. My name is Lex. I suck govt cock for free.

For FREE

Truly a libertarian hero.

[LexAquilia]

I'm not libertarian.

I am also not a leftwing agitator and insurgent trying to undermine society and create a revolution.

Are you really an attorney? Or is your nom de plume a play on Windy City Heat where you're just some retarded caricature of one like you seem to appear in comments around here.

[windycityattorney]

Who is trying to undermine society here Lex? The people of Minnesota who are just trying to get through another cold winter or the fucking fed govt who sends 3k armed agents there? I don't know where you live but I have been in the midwest my whole life. I have family in Minneapolis. I take my kids to the great wolf lodge indoor water park there. I fish musky and pike there regularly.

MN of all places is the LAST place in the entire midwest who deserve this fake MAGA political stunt bullshit. Like the guy murdered today. What was he doing right before dying, Lex? Helping a woman who was pushed over by ICE?? Typical midwest thing to do. I don't give two flying fucks what DHS says, or the MAGA fanatics here say based on what DHS puts out in some failed PR move to justify MURDER by their agents.

It has nothing to do with enforcing federal immigration laws at this point. In the America I used to know, heavily armed masked military gear wearing roving squads don't ask 'papers please' and terrorize entire communities to meet some stupid quota sent from D.C. If that - or anything remotely resembling that -is okay with you then frankly you have no fucking idea what living in the land of the 'free' is supposed to mean. Fuck off forever. You are not my countrymen. You are more foreign to me than any illegal alien can ever be.

[LexAquilia]

lol you're trying to make it all about you! are you a chick? wtf

23% of all ICE arrests occur in Texas
2.2% occur in Minnesota

A 10-fold difference

Yet far more ICE-related violence is happening in Minnesota.

Your side is causing the chaos. I hope more rebels find their proper place under the dirt.

[Frank Drackman]

I gotta hand it to you Progressives, I wish I could be as Homofobic as you guys!

[hobie]

Is this a bit more of the 'No! You're the pedophile!', 'No! You stole the election!' stuff, Frankie?

I'm always amused when it gets to that. Please...continue.

[Life of Brian]

Yeah, that's the video Shipley was commenting on above. I downloaded that one too, but it's even blurrier than the other video and the contrast in the wad of bodies is pretty washed out from the angle of the sun. There's definitely a pivotal moment around 0:26 that causes the agent standing to the left to draw his weapon, but I haven't yet been able to make out what it was.

[LexAquilia]

He was shot at. There are more videos coming out.

[Kenneth Almquist]

Yeah. At 36.5 through 38, his weight is on his elbows, not his hands, and his right hand is near to but not in contact with the ground. His left hand does appear to be in contact with the ground when we can see it (e.g. at 36.93).

Where the video really fails to live up to its billing is that after the 38 second mark an ICE agent blocks our view. At 38.33, we can still see a portion of the victim’s right hand, and I’m convinced that both elbows are still on the ground at that point. The first shot is fired somewhere around the 39.7 mark, more than a second later. So if you want to know what the victim was doing at the moment he was shot, this video is pretty useless.

[Life of Brian]

Countdown to "what does Bill Shipley know about criminal law, anyway?"

[Dr. Ed 2]

It seems to me that if the Minneapolis Police Department had been directing traffic, if they had blocked off the road themselves, NONE OF THIS WOULD’VE HAPPENED.

I’m reminded of what the New York Police Department said about the riots in Charlottesville, that it wouldn't have happened in New York City because they wouldn’t have allowed the two groups to be that close together. Likewise, if the city police. HAD DONE THEIR JOBS, NONE OF THIS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED!!!

Tampon Tim and the rest of the schmucks have blood in their hands.

[hobie]

You had one job: Erase neegroes and expel brownies. And all that has been going fine.

But you couldn't help yourselves...

[LexAquilia]

You forgot the queers.

[Frank Drackman]

Always gotta make it about you, don't you?

[LexAquilia]

You're pretty funny for one of those Messianic Jews

[Frank Drackman]

I heard your Boyfriend's cut you down to once a month, hey, cheer up, 2 other guys he cut off completely!

[hobie]

Poor Frankie. He forgets that all his MAGA pals hate his guts. But he can't help cozying up...because, like all MAGA, the brownies are more important than food, water, healthy economy, or religion

[Kazinski]

Prof. Alexander Kustov, who is pro-immigration, has a substack essay about pro-immigration misinformation.

I am also pro-immigration, but legal immigration, so I mostly agree with his points. The major problem, in my view is trying to conflate illegal immigration with legal immigration.

"The core problem is that we rarely say out loud what we all know privately: some immigration policies, and thus also some immigrants which they bring, are much more beneficial economically or culturally than others for receiving countries. Instead, we talk as if “immigration” were a single, abstract good that works for everyone, everywhere, and under any policy design.1 That is not just technically wrong on the evidence, but also politically self-defeating.

When reality fails to match this story—that immigration is always positive and has no downsides—voters do not conclude that immigration is complicated. They conclude that the people in charge are not being straight with them, just as many concluded during the botched response to Covid and on other issues."

"I’m just not trying to engage in “both-sidism” here. There are already hundreds of pieces debunking anti-immigration myths, far-right conspiracy theories, and nativist propaganda.3 By contrast, almost nobody has tried to catalogue misleading claims on immigration from a pro-immigration perspective, even though the dynamic is very similar to what we now see around climate and many other issues.

What I mean by “highbrow pro-immigration misinformation”
Building on Joseph Heath’s work on highbrow progressive climate misinformation and Matthew Yglesias’s piece on elite misinformation as an underrated problem, philosopher Dan Williams has convincingly argued that a lot of so-called misinformation today does not come from anonymous trolls or bot farms, but from respectable institutions staffed by highly educated professionals."

https://alexanderkustov.substack.com/p/the-uncomfortable-truths-about-immigration

Here is the first footnote which makes an important point:
"1.Since we’re on the internet, I need to reiterate that saying some policies are better than others for receiving countries is not a claim about the intrinsic worth of any individual migrant. It is a claim about which legal pathways governments have to decide on are more likely to be politically sustainable and broadly beneficial in practice."

And I should also mention that while his piece doesn't mention Ilya by name, he should of.

[Bunny495]

The elephant in the room pro-immigration advocates don't seem to want to address is most immigration to America is driven economic benefits available in America and not in the countries they came from. There are also economic benefits America reaps from immigrants. These benefits to America are not evenly distributed however and to are not isolated to economic issues. The bottom line is that America takes way more immigrants than any other country and not only has a crazy outdated immigration policy, but it is enforced in such a bizarre way as to be impossible to understand.

[grb]

Kazinski : (quoting) : "... some immigrants which they bring, are much more beneficial economically or culturally than others for receiving countries."

Here's the problem with that : We've heard this "unbeneficial" and "bad immigrant" shtick many times. It always seems to be pushed by huckster demagogues looking to convince dupe mobs their problems are caused by some hated "Other".

Fair 'nuff, but what's the historical record of this position? Well, we were told the Irish were "bad immigrants". And the Jews. And the Catholics. And the Italians. And the Germans. And the Chinese. And the Japanese. Others too.

So per the historical record, Kazinski's position bats .000 (as in never right) (as in always wrong). If you want to make a case the huckster demagogues are right this time, we must see more work. To prove the dupes are less dupish than seen with previous times of anti-immigrant panic & hysteria, we need to see a better case.

[Bunny495]

You missed K's point about painting with too big a brush. No question about a Jew (at least passing for one) like Einstein was a benefit but I am not sure you would want to say the same thing about Meyer Lansky, same goes for Fermi but Capone would get the boot from me. K's point was there are good immigrants and bad ones. America has one of the most lenient immigration policies of any country. Many places basically require proof of a fat bank account and steady source of income. Lots of countries require not only a visa but a return ticket to even enter the country. Even if some immigrants are beneficial in the macro view they may not be s in the micro view to some citizens. Details matter.

[grb]

Bunny495 : "Details matter."

That's a shame for you, because you've got everything bassackwards wrong.

You're acting as if Kazinski's position is directed at the level of individuals. But you only need to look at the tail end of his quote to see the exact opposite is true. The differentiating "policies" he applauds are not "a claim about the intrinsic worth of any individual migrant". Kazinski even insisted on highlighting that particular quote. How could you have missed that?

As with every other time this country went bat-shit crazy over immigration, the policies he promotes are at the racial, ethnic, or nationality level. And as with every other time previously, they'll be proved 100% wrong over time.

[Dr. Ed 2]

there are two differences between immigration post 1970 and immigration pre-1970.

1: Welfare handouts.

2: Affirmative retribution, and discrimination law.

Pre-1970 immigrants discriminated against, now it’s the white Americans who discriminated against. Irish Italian immigrants were proud to be Americans and probably waived the American flag, Somali immigrants fly the Somali flag and a man loyalty to Somalia, etc..

Three 1970 immigrants were expected to learn English and use it, now we’re expected or in Spanish.

I could go on indefinitely but the big difference is that we’re now treating immigrants better they were treating our old people. My people have been here since 1647, and I am treated worse than someone who stuck across the border last week. That’s bullshit.

[grb]

Dr. Ed 2 (summarized) : "These new immigrants (with their icky brown skin) won't assimilate".

Every other anti-immigrant craze from the past : "These new immigrants won't assimilate."

You might want to check on your forefather's rhetoric, Ed. The distinctions you find aren't distinct at all. The Italians will never assimilate (we were told). Nor the Jews. Nor the Irish. And so on, so on, so on. Always the same tune....

I should also take time to dig up economic data on the overall benefits from immigration, but that's been done repeatedly in this forum before. And it never makes the slightest difference. When you stir together the Right's obsession with Victimhood™, their addiction to zero-sum thought, and their sad little snowflake fears over the threat to their "Whiteness", you get a person panting-eager to see "those" people as cheating him. It becomes a physiological imperative.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, I can remember my grandfather (born in 1885) complaining about the “goddamn foreigners.“

And they assimilated because we stopped admitting immigrants a century ago and it took the better part of the 20th century for the immigrants we had to assimilate. At the very least, we need to say no mas for at least another 50 years.

But my point is that the Irish assimilated IN SPITE OF THE “Irish Catholics need not apply“ signs. The Italians assimilated in spite of the racial slurs, as did the Jews. Both learned English and assimilated towhat was a largely protestant culture.

We had ghettos but not “no go zones.“ the concept of a “little Mogadishu“ would have been unthinkable 50 years ago.

[Magister]

"I could go on indefinitely"

Demonstrated time and again. But maybe you could proofread your comments before sending them? Deciphering your lunacy is too much work without also having to guess which was caused by autocorrect.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The problem I’m having is that AutoCorrect re-corrects the stuff I’ve already fixed…

[David Nieporent]

Every other anti-immigrant craze from the past : "These new immigrants won't assimilate."

You might want to check on your forefather's rhetoric, Ed. The distinctions you find aren't distinct at all. The Italians will never assimilate (we were told). Nor the Jews. Nor the Irish. And so on, so on, so on. Always the same tune....

Ed continues to be too uneducated to not know what he doesn't know. In fact, Irish and Italian immigrants not only waved (not "waived") their own flags and had loyalty to their home countries and continued to speak their native languages (well, Irish people spoke English to begin with), but somewhere between a third and a half of Italian immigrants to the U.S. returned to Italy after working here for a number of years.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ever hear of Gaelic?

[David Nieporent]

Yes.

[Brett Bellmore]

Here's the issue:

"Most serious researchers I know would summarize their view roughly like this: freer immigration tends to be strongly beneficial on average, but this average elides distributional effects. Some groups will be worse off in the short or medium run and may need to be compensated or protected. That is a perfectly respectable position."

Kaldor–Hicks efficiency

"A re-allocation is a Kaldor–Hicks improvement if those that are made better off could hypothetically compensate those that are made worse off and lead to a Pareto-improving outcome. The compensation does not actually have to occur (there is no presumption in favor of status-quo) and thus, a Kaldor–Hicks improvement can in fact leave some people worse off."

The problem is policies that are justified on the basis that they're net good, and the people actually harmed could be compensated, except that in practice they never are.

[Magister]

Brett Bellmore: Sure, immigrants have made this country wealthier, but how dare anyone take a penny from white people who stole it fair and square and only compensate them in opportunity and shared wealth!

Black people: So, reparations?

Brett Bellmore: No, that would be raaaaaaciiiiiist!!!!!

[Frank Drackman]

I’m all for “Reparations”
So how much are the Blacks going to pay us for freeing them?

Frank

[Dr. Ed 2]

One of my great great grandfather’s came back without his foot, and the other died in “hospital, Washington“, and we don’t even know where he’s buried.

I’m thinking that some subrogation is due here….

[LexAquilia]

I can't wait to see the back & forth on that magistrate & district judge rebelling against Justice. Especially regarding that one judge's absolute cringe and unprofessional whinge to the court of appeals.

Judges are participating in rebellion. They it right in Ecuador.
Another Democrat judge just released a convicted MS-13 murderer so he would avoid deportation. Democrats are releasing foreign alien murderers on the streets on purpose. They want us terrorized by criminals.

[JohnSmith97]

Will it be another 4 paragraph NG screed? Only time will tell.

[LexAquilia]

He will, and he will also ignore the plain language of the Appeals response. If the DOJ can show probable cause, that's it. The magistrate issues the warrant. The DOJ showed probable cause.

NG will focus on the unprecedented DOJ response, while ignoring the unprecedented action taken by the magistrate in the first place.

[Dr. Ed 2]

We need to get a true MAGA Congress and start doing pro forma impeachments of these clowns. I think it’s at least 200 judges, and probably at least as many magistrates that need to go.

[LexAquilia]

They funded NED for crissakes and transing kids.

Heads you lose. Tails you lose.

[hobie]

Having many British friends from my expat days in Europe, I can tell you that all of them - including all the one's that are MAGA-adjacent - are absolutely furious with Trump over his British troops comments.

They rightly pointed out that when America was attacked, they heeded the NATO call and sacrificed their own in combat to help us. And then Trump shits on them and their dead.

Trump's unmeant, obsequious tweet trying to walk it back ain't working. In fact it made it a lot worse.

I'll tell you MAGA one thing; there's only one significant foreign pool of MAGA supporters: and that'd be our racist, violent forefathers in England. But you've burnt even that bridge.

Now London is giving China a grand embassy, and Canada is going all in for Chinese cars. No one needs us as much as you think they do.

[LexAquilia]

Oh yes pls, let those dead civilizations get hollowed out by the Chicoms.

No one gives a shit. Let them grow to hate China and Chinese goods like the rest of us do. And any man putting his family in a Chinese made car should be arrested for child endangerment.

[hobie]

No one wants us, our bullshit, or our stuff anymore. I'd like to see how you figure we can sustain our national industries when China and Europe can easily supply it all...without all the drama.

You're gonna get the isolation you wished for, Lex. Hope it was worth it.

[ThePublius]

"No one wants us, our bullshit, or our stuff anymore."

Why do we need borders then? Obviously, no one wants to come here.

[hobie]

The immigrants will stop coming too. Like I chastised Frankie above, you'll eschew everything - including our prosperity - just to get the brownies.

And when there ain't a brown or gay in sight, and all the weeds are growing up through the interstate, and there's no one left to blame for all the troubles that remain except all the white heterosexual Christians...who are you gonna blame?

[LexAquilia]

You mean the single demographic that's contributed more to humanity than any other in all of history?

Oh noes!! What will ever do, but have a Golden Age!?!? Some one stop threatening us with a Golden Age?!!?

---

lmao for real, do you really think normal people weep if they don't see a gay or a minority around lol? They feel safe.

Now if only you had included teh Jews. Then we would've entered the PLATINUM AGE. Just like Spain did when they expelled them.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, only expel the self hating antisemitic Jews.

Let’s keep the observant Jews, and the secular Jews who hold Jewish cultural values.

But ask the people like George Soros, good riddance….

[hobie]

So the Jew - George Soros - is not really a Jew. Like the ADL and the 20 million American Jews that didn't vote right.

In other words - and I know this is hard to see from your perspective - fuck all Jews.

[LexAquilia]

Who would brainwash you and fill you with hatred for your fellow Whites and subvert your family??

[ducksalad]

20 million? I think even if you count back to 1788, and count all of them as not voting right, you'll have a hard time getting to 20 million.

[Frank Drackman]

They're such great Allies we fought them in 2 Wars. And even after that they weren't really good People, ask anyone in the 56 Countries they used to occupy. They put Gandhi in jail for crying out loud. They fought the Afrikaners because they weren't racist enough for them.

Frank

[hobie]

My dad despised servicemen that reflexively taunt the Europeans for 'saving them'. Of course, he was just a young lawyer drafted into the regular Army sent to the beach of Normandy (yes he was - got shot twice), not your modern, coddled, pussy-ass, keyboard Marine.

[Frank Drackman]

Boy, and people say I make shit up. You left out that like Niedermayer, he was shot by his own troops.

[JohnSmith97]

If the UK is such a perfect place, hobie, why not move back? Cheap healthcare, the ability to get anyone who disagrees with you arrested (no freedom of speech) - sounds just about perfect for a lefty like you.

[Frank Drackman]

There's that pesky Buggery Warrant with the Home Office.

[Dr. Ed 2]

My respect for Great Britain went into the toilet when they started throwing people in jail for speech.

Bleep them.

[John F. Carr]

A Boston University student claimed he called ICE and got some people detained. He got death threats in return. BU's reaction was, you probably shouldn't come on campus. Lawyers say that's a problem for BU.

Is it? If university affiliated people threatened him for being white, BU might need to pretend to react. "No. Don't. Stop." If the same people try to kill him for being conservative, isn't that his problem? Federal funding doesn't require schools to treat political minorities fairly. The student's remedy is to write to Trump and get him to cut off all federal funds to BU on some other pretext. State contract law most likely doesn't require extra security.

https://www.boston.com/news/local-news/2026/01/24/law-firm-says-bu-failed-to-protect-student-who-reported-allston-car-wash-workers/

[Dr. Ed 2]

One of the things that has come up in the student affairs literature is that in preventing students from defending themselves i.e. carry guns, the institution assumes a burden to protect them.

I don’t know how true this is or isn’t, only that most of what I’ve seen is in the context of liability, usually in terms of students who get raped, and schools winding up paying large amount of money to them.

I am neither an attorney not pretend to be, but much of what I’ve seen has been authored by attorneys who specialize in institutional liability.

[Josh R]

The administration called Good a domestic terrorist. Today's dead guy is being called an assassin who wanted to do maximum damage to law enforcement.

The gaslighting is not sitting well with the normies.

[Armchair]

https://www.compactmag.com/article/how-pro-immigrant-activism-turned-dangerous/

[John F. Carr]

If Good tried to assault a government agent with a deadly weapon for political reasons, which is the government's position and more generally the right's position, then the terrorist label fits. Anti-government violence is considered terrorism. Some of the January 6 defendants were sentenced under the terrorism provisions of the sentencing guidelines.

If there was a halo over her head and she was murdered for being in the wrong place, which is the left's position, then she is a martyr rather than a terrorist.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

David Nieporent doesn't seem to believe there is a halo over her head so he must be a third category.

[Josh R]

The government's position is gaslighting. The normies (*) saw the video and know better. Ditto today's death.

Armchair (not a normie) responded with a non sequitur.

(*) A normie is a left-center or right-center fair-minded person.

[Life of Brian]

A normie is a left-center or right-center fair-minded person.

No true Normie would think otherwise!

I saw the video, and observed her sneering and jeering at multiple agents, then at the critical moment looking straight at Ross right as she cranked the wheels around to point directly at him, and then punched the gas.

Those are the objective facts we have to work with, and certainly support intentional conduct. I haven't seen anything from the "oh, she was just trying to drive away" crowd that doesn't involve either 1) denying one or more of the above objective facts from the videos, or 2) mindreading.

[David Nieporent]

I saw the video, and observed her sneering and jeering at multiple agents,

I'd say "mocking" would be a better characterization, but that's a matter of opinion.

then at the critical moment looking straight at Ross right as she cranked the wheels around to point directly at him, and then punched the gas.

But this is not a matter of opinion; this is just a lie. She did not look straight at Ross, did not point her wheels directly at him, and did not punch the gas. (I suppose technically it's three lies, not a lie.)

[Life of Brian]

I mean, what am I supposed to believe? David "Nuh uh" Nieporent, or my lying eyes?

I guess I should at least give you points for consistency. I suppose you're also still steadfastly maintaining that the car didn't even contact Ross?

[David Nieporent]

I suppose you're also still steadfastly maintaining that the car didn't even contact Ross?

I continue to maintain — as even Brett has pointed out — no video clearly shows any such contact. I have said on more than one occasion that some of the video leaves open the possibility that there was contact, but if so, it was between the side of the car and Ross, not her driving into him.

What is indisputable is that if there was contact, it was so minor that he wasn't even knocked down. There is no reliable evidence of any injury, and police incident reports say that (contrary to DHS propaganda) he didn't even go directly to the hospital, but went back to the federal building.

And even the people here playing amateur accident reconstruction expert have calculated that she was driving at low speed.

[Dr. Ed 2]

If the federal building had paramedics on staff, which often is protocol for situations where you may have personnel injured, he would get better and quicker medical care there than walking into a hospital and having to identify himself in the rest.

You would be amazed what anambulance and competent crew can do today.

[Life of Brian]

Yup... "doesn't clearly show," "no reliable evidence," "low speed," "it was just the tip... er, side," "big baby didn't collapse in the streets right here so he was clearly fine."

Still only 4 fingers, O'Brien.

[Dr. Ed 2]

EDR

You do realize that, even if you floor the gas pedal, the computer doesn’t immediately give you full throttle, don’t you?

The vehicle may have been going slow, but the EDR data will say what she intended for it to do

[David Nieporent]

You do realize that you don't have any idea whether there's any EDR data, whether it was collected, or what it shows, right?

[Josh R]

You are not a normie. You are a hard-right and/or Trump partisan.

[Life of Brian]

Oh, I already knew I wasn't a normie simply because I didn't draw the "correct" conclusions you said any normie would. No need to gild the lily.

[Josh R]

We knew from your posts long before ICE came to Minnesota you were not a normie.

[TwelveInchPianist]

There's gotta be a way to figure out who's a normie and who isn't.

I got it!

Can men get pregnant?

[LexAquilia]

lol those clowns are so clueless

[Josh R]

If "men" refers to sex, no. If "men" refers to gender identity, yes. Normies would either answer with a resounding "no" or as I did. The extremists would insist on yes in all cases.

[LexAquilia]

If "men" refers to sex, no. If "men" refers to gender identity, yes

You think that's a normie position for real or are you just trolling?

[Josh R]

I think it is within normie to consider "men" to refer to either sex or gender identity. It's also within normie to consider "men" to refer to only sex so long as the reason isn't that gender identity does not exist.

[LexAquilia]

I think it is within normie to consider "men" to refer to either sex or gender identity
_______

lol no it isn't lol wtf

[TwelveInchPianist]

I'm sorry Josh, the correct normie answer is "No."

[Armchair]

"Armchair (not a normie) responded with a non sequitur."

Didn't read the article, eh?

"There's a way to protest effectively and help immigrant communities.."Over the course of two years, I trained a steady stream of volunteers. The groups they worked with varied in size and effectiveness. Some secured grants and built formal programs with dedicated legal staff. Others operated informally, arranging rides for immigrants to court or check-ins with ICE. But certain features were consistent. All relied on small bodies of trained volunteers and nonprofit coordinators. All focused on supporting immigrants after arrest. Most notably, throughout the years these networks operated, I did not encounter a single instance in which local police or ICE agents arrested observers for their presence at the scene of an operation. This reflected a simple fact: Our efforts were not aimed at interfering with authorities."

"The transformation of rapid response networks cannot be explained by any change in the needs of immigrants. Most detainees still go through deportation hearings without an attorney. A large number are unable to afford bonds. These people would benefit from the sorts of assistance rapid reponse networks were once focused on providing. Unfortunately, many activists seem less concerned with the needs of migrants than with staging dramatic confrontations with an administration they despise. "

[Josh R]

Yes, I read it and your invocation of it is a non sequitur (or perhaps a red herring) because the article doesn't say boo about my comment on the gaslighting by the administration

[John F. Carr]

Here is the docket for the Eight Circuit mandamus case seeking an arrest warrant against (presumably) Don Lemon and his (alleged) partners in crime. Mandamus denied.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72185493/in-re-united-states-of-america/

I think the media got it wrong. Judge Grasz said the affidavits seeking an arrest warrant established probable cause but the government was still not entitled to a writ of mandamus. The panel majority did not explain its decision and did not decide whether probable cause was shown. (Document 805439026.)

The chief judge of the district wrote to the appeals court (document 805439055) saying he already told the govermment he would review the case next week and nothing needed to be done before the weekend. He was annoyed by the government's demand to have the arrest warrant issue immediately.

[Mr. Bumble]

"I think the media got it wrong." You forgot to add "as usual".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"He was annoyed by the government's demand to have the arrest warrant issue immediately."

I'll bet.

[David Nieporent]

Mandamus requires both that the right to the substantive thing being sought be indisputable and that there be no other avenue to get that thing.

[LexAquilia]

Of course, all of us can parrot what the Court of Appeals said.

Now address the judicial insurrection by that magistrate?

[TwelveInchPianist]

If I had to guess, I would say that Dave N. read the post slightly too quickly and understood JFC to say that the COA got it wrong.

[David Nieporent]

You didn't have to guess, and if you chosen to do so and that were your guess, it would have been wrong. I was not correcting JFC; I was following up on what he wrote to explain it a bit more to other people.

[TwelveInchPianist]

OK, then I'm glad I didn't guess. That was a close one.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Steve Vladeck has an emergency Substack (he usually posts twice a week) entitled "Accountability After Minneapolis." It might be fitting for an "often libertarian" blog. If there is one around.

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/204-accountability-after-minneapolis

Eventually, he noted:

Fourth, and speaking of my mind being boggled, I also continue to be more than a little disappointed in the small but significant cohort of visible, accomplished, and undeniably intelligent right-of-center law professors who have spent the last 17 days (and, really, the last 369) staying awfully quiet. I understand the reluctance to stick one’s neck out, especially in this current moment in our political culture. But it seems like this kind of reform—accountability for when federal officers break the law—is something folks should easily be able to get behind even if they’re unwilling to express a view on whether any of what sure looks like rampant lawlessness we’re seeing from this administration actually crosses the line.

Perhaps, since the RKBA is involved, we will have further comment. After all:

First, meaningful accountability for government officers isn’t—and shouldn’t be—a political or ideological issue. One can accept that we’re all going to have widely varying views on exactly which rights the Constitution protects (and how), and still believe that, whatever rights the Constitution recognizes, there ought to be a meaningful way to enforce them against all government officers.

[John F. Carr]

Orin Kerr mentions rights and remedies in his recent post: Can ICE Enter a Home To Make an Arrest With Only an Administrative Warrant?

[JoeFromtheBronx]

An intriguing Fourth Amendment issue was raised and Prof. Kerr. came back and dropped of one his relatively rare entries.

[Absaroka]

Was looking at google news, and ... the MN Fox station has an interesting take:

-the vid segment under "Bovino has previously lied about use of force" has testimony of his testimony, and the incident he is testifying about.
-and on today's shooting: "Dig deeper:
Bovino, who previously lied about agents’ use of force during immigration operations, declined to answer questions about whether Pretti brandished his firearm at any point.

"Every video angle we have seen seems to indicate that there was no visible firearm at that point, so it’s uncertain why there would have been any perception of a threat," Doar said.

Multiple videos of the shooting appear to show Pretti being disarmed after being taken to the ground and before shots were fired.

The video shows one agent reaching into the huddle as Pretti is being detained and pulling out a handgun that Doar says matches the description of the gun provided by DHS.

"My take of it is it looks like he was actually disarmed prior to the fatal shots being fired," Doar said."

Food for thought for people who trust Fox.

[John F. Carr]

Fox Television Stations, which runs KMSP, is distinct from Fox News and its controversial politics.

[LexAquilia]

No smart people trust Fox after their outrageous Arizona call.

[David Nieporent]

I mean, setting aside how you would know what smart people think, that would be a particularly weird hill to die on since Fox was correct.

[LexAquilia]

Not in legal ballots

[Dr. Ed 2]

I heard one shot followed by a whole bunch of shots. What’s the possibility of an accidental discharge of the perp gun when it was being confiscated?

We’ve long known that Law enforcement is it universally noted for safe gun handling, was the possibility of some idiot lifted by the trigger

It’s still FAFO — and he should not have been rooting vehicles into the middle of what was apparently a border patrol operation. The Minneapolis police should be there assisting the border patrol and blocked off the road. They are the ones who are really at fault here.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

It was very cold this morning in NYC.

When I first went out, I noticed that the temperature was in the single digits. It is now listed as 17 degrees in my area.

I am impressed by all those people out protesting in Minnesota and elsewhere. I looked it up and the temperature of Minneapolis is listed in the negative digits.

We are due for a lot of snow tomorrow.

[Frank Drackman]

It's this new Invention, it's called "Winter"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Unfortunately, Minneapolis isn’t.

An as a cold weather, with all the folks who made the comments about me keeping guns warm, notice how ice is having problems with their paintball guns misfiring, and their pepper spray not spraying.

[LexAquilia]

A Jew dies and meets God, and asks Him, "Is it wrong to commit a genocide of Palestinians?"

"Yes," God replies.

"Damn," says the Jew. "Antisemitism is more widespread than I thought."

[Frank Drackman]

If we're going to do Surpreme Being Jokes, I think the one where Hey-Zeus says he can see his house (from his perch on the Cross) is funnier.
Bill Cosby did such a great bit about Noah and God, too bad he didn't do a God/Hey-Zeus routine.
"OK, so I have to assume Human form, go to Earth, live there for 33 years, and WHAT!?!?!?!""
"It's the only way to redeem Man's Eternal Soul"
"Well Fuck Man's Eternal Soul, he can go to Hell!!!!"

Frank

[hobie]

Lex, this isn't Breibart. Even the racists here have a cover story of respect for Jews...which a few of us pretend to believe. You'd find more people who believe in your bullshit if you'd just switch to Breitbart.

[LexAquilia]

hobie, brother, you and I both are for Palestinian Liberation.
You also do not like the Zionist, and that means you're anti-semetic.

[hobie]

Sigh. As I've said over and over here. I'm neither for the Palestinians or the Jews...as a people. Just like you and I, they are both a bunch of violent savages. But I can recognize when one savage is more powerful than the other, such that they torment the other relentlessly. Like with you lot and our gays and blacks. I don't like it.

I mean, I live among the neegroes here. Doesn't mean I like them. They're as self-interested and horrible as the MAGA rednecks in the suburbs a few miles away. So I support neither of you.

[ducksalad]

Sorry to hear it. Damn near everyone in my city is a pretty decent human being. Never met a "violent savage" at all and >98% make a good attempt at keeping the "self-interested" within civilized bounds.

[hobie]

My neighbors are fine. But none are altruistic. They'd watch a dog die in the street and not help it at all. Whatever doesn't affect their personal bottom line is inconsequential. And I despise them for it.

But when I watch MAGA not care at all about human life. When they actually celebrate death. Well, they're worse than the neegroes they despise. At least the neegroes will regret the loss of life even if they don't give a shit otherwise.

[Bunny495]

A Jew goes to his rabbi and says, 'my son has given up Judaism and has become a Baptist minister and says he wants to save the world'. The rabbi strokes his beard and says, "I too have a son who gave up Judaism to become Catholic priest and says he wants to save the world" and the rabbi then says, "let us pray". They both pray and God appears and they both tell their stories about their sons giving up Judaism and becoming Christians to save the world. God strokes his beard and says, "I too have a son..."

[ducksalad]

[nevermind]

[Dr. Ed 2]

+1000

[LexAquilia]

That's great

[hobie]

Jesus Christ, I've seen enough videos now. Straight MURDERED. You hayseeds have lost your souls if you condone this shit.

[David Nieporent]

your souls

Assumes facts very much not in evidence.

[SRG2]

I think that there is a real risk that the next time a Regime agent kills a citizen, the agent will be lynched

[hobie]

We've approached a point where none of us can feel safe if these masked guys are walking around. They'll kill anyone. Then we'll have the shooting war MAGA has dreamed of.

I don't like to admit it, but I have a nice Heckler & Koch pistol. Don't know if it can blow up the Empire State Building like the hayseeds expect from their guns. But it seems like it would do the trick if ICE decides to do a Tulsa on us here

[Frank Drackman]

FAAFO
I’ve got a G3 and a semi Model 91, the all time baddest ass looking Battle Rifles of all time.
Funny thing is H&K originally made Sewing Machines.
They say in your dying moments your entire life flashes before your eyes, in your case an XXX rated Gay Porno.

[hobie]

Why Frankie. I'm the second guy in this thread you've accused of homosexuality. Why with the homosexuality, Frankie? Why the preoccupation?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Frank, it was Remington that invented the typewriter.

Sewing machine, gun, typewriter, they really are similar devices.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Exodus 22.2

[SRG2]

And now the Brownshirts are blocking access to the scene of the killing:

Department of Homeland Security accused by investigators of blocking off Alex Pretti crime scene

Department of Homeland Security officers have blocked Minneapolis state police from investigating the shooting of protester Alex Pretti and ignored their warrant.

Drew Evans, the superintendent of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), said the his agents had a signed warrant from a judge but were blocked from the scene by the feds and told that DHS would be handling the investigation.

The feds should be arrested for obstruction

[Dr. Ed 2]

FAFO

Just like the folks who played chicken with freight trains.
FA FO..

Honestly folks, in the prior 12 months we’ve had a border patrol guy murdered in Northern Vermont. We’ve had a guard girl murdered in DC. We’ve had a sorted LEO’s shot.

What rational person goes to confront the police while armed without expecting them to see the gun and shoot him?

[jb]

You know, this Second Amendment you guys seem to love so much doesn't seem to be that useful if it becomes invalid in the presence of a law enforcement officer.

[bernard11]

How were they sorted? By last name, rank, years of service, notches on their gun?

[SRG2]

The Brownshirts can't tolerate being mocked.

Don’t say ‘Watch out for ice’: FEMA warned storm announcements could invite memes

Homeland Security officials have urged disaster response staff at the Federal Emergency Management Agency to avoid using the word “ice” in public messaging about the massive winter storm barreling toward much of the United States, according to two sources familiar with the directive.

[LexAquilia]

That's smart optics management. Your brain washing has rotted your brain.

[SRG2]

The mighty hunter ventures out in search of prey. He returns to a location that has served him well in the past. Though he often encountered other hunters, there was usually enough for everyone.

But today might be different. At this time of the season, prey could be scarce He walks rapidly but quietly along a path, having spotted from a distance the tell-tale signs of prey - to his surprise, still in abundance. He moves closer, and his initial impression is confirmed. He prefers smaller prey to larger - even small prey may serve him well for weeks, and he has no need to tire himself out carrying larger prey back to his dwelling.

Moving swiftly and intently, from habit rather than need, he attempts to grab his prey with one hand - leaving the other hand free in case he needs to defend his prize from other hunters, and is successful!

He lets himself exhibit a small but triumphant smile. It will be months before he'll need another pack of Charmin' Ultra Soft

[ducksalad]

You could have a taxidermist mount one on a wooden plaque, display it in your den. Tell the story over whisky and cigars.

[Frank Drackman]

I know it may be too soon,
But some lucky stiffs going to get some great Gopher Hockey tickets!

Frank

[LexAquilia]

We found the rebel Perrotis motive for guarding where he was. There are 184 Somali childcare centers registered at the address he died at.

He was protecting Walz and the fraud.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Wow….

[ReaderY]

The federal government kills somebody fo lawful possession of a gun, claiming simple possession of a gun makes one a terrorist, and not a peep from the Conspiracy’s 2nd Amendment posse.

The silence is deafening.

[LexAquilia]

The silence is defeaning because your retarded bluesky hot take is a deranged strawman.

There is a video where you can hear the rebel firing first.

[ReaderY]

Produce this video. Link?

Also, assuming you can show that this video actually exists, you said “hear,” not “see.” Are saying there’s nothing to see, the video doesn’t show the victim doing any actual hostile action such as removing the gun from the holster? There was just some sort of loud sound that you presume came from the victim?

[LawTalkingGuy]

https://x.com/phil_lewis_/status/2015248184218439979?s=46&t=swfuX8A13L7H9PAYSakPtA

[LexAquilia]

Survey time:

How would you rate ICEs performance in MN so far?

Good or Pretti Good?

[Dr. Ed 2]

Excellent.

When this started a month ago, I said that ICE would he put into situations that they would have to shoot their way out of, and that would be the consequences of the criminal negligence of state and city officials in Minneapolis, including their purported police department.

Look at the various videos of today’s shooting, not of the shooting but of the bedlam that was surrounding it. Whistle screeching horns blowing people in the middle of everything if this had Ben Amherst half of them would be in jail now the other half of the hospital.

Reality is that police officers get to do anything they damn well please and shoot anybody who tries to stop them. I haven’t seen anybody raising an issue about this for the past 30 years so why should it be different now?

This was not an innocent bystander who got shot, he assaulted federal officers and this is the punishment for that. He deserved what he got — that’s what they said to the white male college students, so why should a dirty hippie come under any other rules?

Personally, I think Trump should declare marshal law in Minneapolis, suspend the writ of habeas corpus, arrest any judge who purports to have the authority to interfere with this, and use the mythical FEMA camps that are supposed to exist out in the desert somewhere. Or house arrestees on a military base.

As an aside, the Geneva convention states that prisoners should be housed in an environment similar to the one they were captured in. Beale AFB on Greenland comes to immediate mind, and it has a lot of empty housing. And is the same climate…

Establish martial law, establish checkpoints out of the cities, round up and process all the illegals, and be done with it. If people wanna fight a Civil War over this, that’s called a rebellion, and the constitution says that the president can suspend the writ of habeas corpus so as to ensure that the laws of faithfully executed.

And the first three people to arrest of the governor, mayor, and police chief. While you don’t need charges if the writ has been suspended, throw terrorism charges at them. If it’s good enough for Jan 6th folk, it’s good enough for these schmucks.

The left has been fighting a civil war for the better part of a decade now. It’s time to end it.

[David Nieporent]

Personally, I think Trump should declare marshal law in Minneapolis,

It's not spelled that way any more than it is spelled the way you spelled it the other day. And even using the correct spelling, it's not a thing.

suspend the writ of habeas corpus,

Nor is that a thing.

arrest any judge who purports to have the authority to interfere with this

Also not a thing.

As an aside, the Geneva convention states that prisoners should be housed in an environment similar to the one they were captured in.

It does not.

Beale AFB on Greenland comes to immediate mind,

Your mind, I'm sure it does. But Beale AFB is in Yuba County, California.

and the constitution says that the president can suspend the writ of habeas corpus

It does not.

[Bunny495]

While the good doctor writes with his usual beyond the pale flourish the point he makes is not entirely wrong. I am changing my position from there is no way Trump would declare martial law to it is possible. DHS and it's underlings are involved in legit enforcement of federal law. I can understand arguments about being heavy handed, cutting corners, and other criticism. By the same token Waltz, Frey, Ellison and other elected and appointed officials have encouraged activist to go right up to the line and maybe cross it. There is substantial outside money being used to hinder the feds. At best this is legal and pushing it. I will refrain from possible violations of federal law, but will not preclude they exist.

I also have to disagree with DN about declaring martial law is not a thing. Trump has a long record of doing things that are not a thing. What worries me most is the solid case that there is a real coordinated effort to create a hostile environment. Following federal agents enforcing the law (in a heavy-handed cutting corners way) and at times violating the law in doing it is asking for trouble; and really asking for trouble with a guy like Trump in charge (you don't pull on Superman's cape, you don't spit in the wind, you don't pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger, and you don't mess around with Jim).

[Estragon]

“Pretti good”

I grow more and more curious about you, Lex. Some days, I wonder where you lay your head.