Open Thread

What’s on your mind?

Comments

[Kazinski]

There likely is no justification other than confusion poor training and human error for the Alex Pretti shooting.

But that is hardly new in Minnesota whether federal officers or local.

In the last few years you had the Philandro Castillo shooting, Officer panics and shoots CCW holder when he informs him he is armed as required by law."The Philando Castile shooting occurred on July 6, 2016, when he was fatally shot by police officer Jeronimo Yanez during a traffic stop in Falcon Heights, Minnesota."

The Noor shooting. "Mohamed Noor, a former Minneapolis police officer, fatally shot Justine Damond, an unarmed woman who had called 911 to report a possible sexual assault, on July 15, 2017."

George Floyd and Derick Chauvin.

the Daunte Wright shooting."Kim Potter, the former Minnesota police officer who said she mistook her gun for a Taser when she shot and killed Daunte Wright in 2021, was released from prison early Monday."

And now we have Alex Pretti.

Probably the closest to the Pretti shooting was the Castillo shooting, that officer was aqutted and served no time.

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/jeronimo-yanez-teaching-license-appeal-denied-philando-castile/

Noor and Potter were convicted, but not of murder and neither served more than a couple of years. Neither of thise two victims were armed.

We know what happened to Chauvin.

[Dr. Ed 2]

No, the difference here is the likely accidental discharge.

It may be enough to get the Sig Sauer 320 recalled as defective, and what almost certainly will do is get police training adjusted to consider the possibility of an accidental discharge.

Accidental discharges are actually fairly common. https://raptorpublicsafety.com/2025/01/24/the-gun-just-went-off-i-didnt-pull-the-trigger-honest-part-1/

The NYPD had a special anti-something unit that accidentally shot a man when one of the officers accidentally fired. This happened about 20 years ago. I forget the victim’s name.

But the other thing that just came out Yesterday is the signal group conspiracy which he was involved in, that Good was involved in.

[Baseballhead]

"But the other thing that just came out Yesterday is the signal group conspiracy ..."

Which is just people sharing where ICE raids were. That's not illegal, it's not even a conspiracy. It's widely circulated crowd-sourced information. Your attempt to make it sound sinister is ridiculous. Your not-subtle suggestion that it justifies to any degree the shootings of Good and Pretti is really just fucking evil.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Bullshite.

Replace ICE with ATF, and replace the mission of apprehending illegal aliens with apprehending illegal guns.

Do you honestly believe that such an organized campaign of essentially terrorism would be acceptable to prevent ATF from doing its job?

Better example: you have an all white and quite racist community that doesn’t want the FBI investigating civil rights complaints. Are you honestly stating that it would be acceptable for some taxes to be used to prevent the FBI from doing its job? That such terrorism would be tolerated?

It’s so bad now that ice has to literally hide in the US Army fort.

[J_A_H]

Remind me how many ICE agents have been murdered in the last month? Zero is it? How many people have tried to kill ICE agents? Zero?

Now how many US citizens have ICE gunned down in response?

Now, how many boot lickers like 'Dr. Ed' here are will to argue that citizens watching what law enforcement does in public is 1) Something they should not do and 2) Something that justifies murdering them.

At least a dozen, by my count.

[David Nieporent]

essentially terrorism

Why are you so stupid?

Are you honestly stating that it would be acceptable for some taxes to be used to prevent the FBI from doing its job? That such terrorism would be tolerated?

What taxes? What preventing? What terrorism? I reiterate: why are you so stupid?

[Longtobefree]

Illegally recording vehicle license plates is not " . . . just people sharing where ICE raids were."

https://notthebee.com/article/patriots-shut-down-leftist-signal-group-coordinating-attacks-on-ice-for-second-day-in-a-row-

[Brett Bellmore]

Excuse me, is it actually illegal to record vehicle license plates?

I could see it being a predicate act in a larger conspiracy, but illegal in and of itself? I don't think so.

[loki13]

1. Recording license plates is not illegal. It is public information.

2. Showing where the goons are is not illegal.

Further-

A. If the goons weren't operating as secret police- if they wore badges, did not mask, and identified themselves, we wouldn't need to do most of this.

B. The illegal activities are being done by the goons, who swap and duplicate license plates in violation of the law.

Finally, anyone who continues to try to press the discredited lies of the administration... you know, that the American Citizens who were murdered by these goons were "domestic terrorists" or "assassins" ... deserve a jackboot to the face.

[jay.tee]

Recording license plates is not illegal. It is public information.

It is, though I think the commercial collection of plate images with geolocation information is a massive invasion of privacy and allows law enforcement to bypass warrant requirements.

But back to what’s happening here: how are the protesters tracing license plates back to their registration information?

[jb]

But back to what’s happening here: how are the protesters tracing license plates back to their registration information?

Where do you see evidence of this happening? It doesn't seem to be discussed in the Babylon Bee or RedState articles posted todary, or the PJ Media article that Michael P posted the other day.

There's discussion of a "database", but that just seems to be a listing of plate numbers. In fact, if you watch the video in the Babylon Bee article you'll see that they're "confirming" that the vehicles are used by ICE by seeing officers come out of them, seeing them nearby operation sites, etc. There doesn't seem to be any link to actual vehicle registration data in that database at least, although we can only see the instructions to use it, not the contents.

[jay.tee]

Here’s where I saw it:

https://x.com/camhigby/status/2015094266742104077?s=61

Somehow, they knew the car was owned or rented by Higby.

[jb]

Hmm. Maybe they just saw him in it? Seems like a stretch to generalize from that one statement that they somehow have access to registration data, especially given how they describe marking their confidence that various vehicles are actually being used by ICE or not.

[Brett Bellmore]

"1. Recording license plates is not illegal. It is public information.

2. Showing where the goons are is not illegal."

Like I said above, while it isn't illegal in and of itself, it IS capable of being a predicate act in a criminal conspiracy.

"A. If the goons weren't operating as secret police- if they wore badges, did not mask, and identified themselves, we wouldn't need to do most of this."

We're in an odd sort of circumstance for the US: We have widely popular immigration laws which a defiant minority of the population have decided are illegitimate, and accordingly they believe they're entitled to obstruct enforcement of them 'by any means necessary'.

One of those means is doxing federal law enforcement so that they can be privately retaliated against. It's not incidental that the cartels have put out a bounty for killing these agents.

This is what led ICE agents to begin concealing their identities.

Now, I agree that it's seriously problematic for law enforcement agents to conceal their identities.

It's also seriously problematic to have what amounts to a distributed insurrection against the government enforcing a legally valid and widely popular law. With a minority of the population deciding that what dictates the legitimacy of law enforcement is just their own private opinions of the law.

Believe me, you would NOT like it if we gun owners decided to treat the gun laws we think are unconstitutional in that manner.

I think we could probably deal with the ID thing by having the agents wear badges that are capable of being linked to particular people through some legal process, so individual agents can be held accountable by the legal system, rather than informal vigilantes.

I don't know how we deal with the left deciding that they get to privately chose which laws are legitimate, and wage a distributed insurrection against the federal government if it dares to enforce laws they don't like.

[loki13]

There are so, so, so many things wrong with what you said (or correct, but misleading) that it is hard to know where to start, but I will try.

First, stop with the conspiracy stuff. This is meaningless nonsense. You would need to specify what the actual "conspiracy crime" is (under state or federal law). Predicate acts are ... you're thinking of RICO, right? I mean, it's never RICO. But assuming you are, by definition legal acts CANNOT BE PREDICATE ACTS. I would explain why, but I won't bother. But please stop. You don't need to qualify what I said with incorrect Brettlaw. "Yes, what you wrote is correct, but it may be be the mens rea for Magical Urine Drinking!"

Second, what Trump is doing is not "widely popular." There are polls and statistics on this. Assaulting Citizens, barging into workplaces and houses, violating the law, and all of it? NOT POPULAR. Again, we have seen before that it is perfectly possible to deport lots of people without all of this. This is purely violence for its own sake. And protest is allowed... in America. Remember? Even protesting stuff you like.

Third, police officers do not wear masks. They identify themselves. And drug cartels aren't after ICE. That's some real BS there. This is to avoid accountability for the abuse of power. Identifying the people who abuse fellow Americans isn't doxxing them- it's the type of basic accountability we demand of all of our police forces. If Trump hadn't created this unaccountable legion of brown shirts, we wouldn't have a need to try and find out who they were so when they assault and murder us, we can try and hold them accountable under the law.

Like now, when they continue to refuse to release the names of those who killed an American citizen.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

What Trump is doing is not "widely popular."

Some things that are popular are also wrong.

I think "let's take a poll" is often not the rule around here. People state their opinions.

Some do try to appeal to popularity. That sort of thing often is rather subjective, even if it involves parsing polls.

But, bottom line, that only goes too far.

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, you got me, I should have said "overt", not "predicate".

[loki13]

I appreciate that you googled something finally given you've been repeating the same incorrect information.

Now, can you understand why that is meaningless? Literally anything a person does is an overt act in support of a conspiracy. ANYTHING.

The problem is that there's no conspiracy. So your endless caveating would apply to literally any act anyone does anytime ever. Everything is an overt act when you don't actually have to bother explaining the CRIME that is the conspiracy.

[windycityattorney]

Brett: The allegation of Bovino having a 10k bounty put on his head by an alleged Latin King gang member in Chicago went to trial.

Do you want to know the verdict?

Or do you want to look up yourself?

I'd be careful what you accept as fact when DHS is involved. Known liars repeat lies and lies get tested in court with predictable results.

[David Nieporent]

One of those means is doxing federal law enforcement so that they can be privately retaliated against. It's not incidental that the cartels have put out a bounty for killing these agents.

It's not incidental so much as entirely 100% fictional. How gullible are you?

[bernard11]

It's not incidental that the cartels have put out a bounty for killing these agents.

This claim comes from DHS.

Now come on, Brett. You damn well know that DHS has not uttered a single true statement throughout this whole thing. Calling people "domestic terrorists," saying that Pretti intended to massacre ICE agents, all the instant, blatantly false, descriptions of the shootings, the refusal to share data with the Minneapolis police, etc.

You know it, but still quote what they say as something to be believed. Are you fucking blind and deaf, or just so wrapped up in immigrant hatred that you accept anything DHS does, and swallow the obvious lies they tell about it.

Libertarian! "We should believe whatever the government tells us."

[MarkJawz]

I have no issue with government goons using force against American citizens, as long as they're the side that is destroying America. That is, the liberal Democrats.

[not guilty]

Poe's Law?

[Joe_dallas]

loki13 11 hours ago
1. Recording license plates is not illegal. It is public information.

Recording license plates is legal. The license plate is public information is of course since they are visible on public roads. However, the owner of the vehicle associated with that license plate is not public info. At least not in most states

[MarkJawz]

Amadou Diallo. He was an illegal alien from Africa who reached for his wallet when confronted by police. Another moron.

[not guilty]

"There likely is no justification other than confusion poor training and human error for the Alex Pretti shooting."

Justification??

Confusion, poor training and human error may help to explain that Keystone Cops fiasco, but no way in hell does any of that justify a damn thing!

I would add hiring thugs who don't give a damn whom they injure as an additional explanatory factor. The in terrorem effect as to black and brown immigrants (and as to those who sympathize with them) is likely intentional.

[Kazinski]

As I said "no justification".

Or as Hanlon said "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity".

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — To explain the two recent killings in Minneapolis requires attribution of malice. Malice is the principle upon which they were organized. Malice delivered the agency which activated the killers. The killers' multiple displays of personal malice toward their victims were unmistakable.

[Kazinski]

Is that just personal malice toward the Trump administration or do you have a cite?

I could as easily say letting in the illegals that ICE is hunting was an act of malice towards America, but that could also be explained by stupidity, so I will go with that.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, you said "no justification other than confusion poor training and human error". The plain meaning there is that you regard "confusion poor training and human error" as indeed being a "justification". Don't crawfish away from the words that you chose.

You, sir, are a moral idiot.

[Brett Bellmore]

The concept of something being inadequately or poorly justified is alien to you?

[Krayt]

It sounded even stronger, he was being sarcastic, to me. How could this be lost on someone on the same side?

[SRG2]

"Something inadequately or poorly justified" is a statement about the argument for justification, not about the conduct itself. Mitigation is not the same as justification.

[not guilty]

"The concept of something being inadequately or poorly justified is alien to you?"

According to merriam-webster.com, "justify" as a transitive verb is defined as:

1 a: to prove or show to be just, right, or reasonable
b (1) : to show to have had a sufficient legal reason
(2) : to qualify (oneself) as a surety (see surety sense 3) by taking oath to the ownership of sufficient property

2 a: to judge, regard, or treat as righteous and worthy of salvation
b archaic : to administer justice to
c archaic : absolve

3 a: to space (lines of text) so that the lines come out even at the margin
b: to make even by spacing lines of text

as an intransitive verb:

1 a: to show a sufficient lawful reason for an act done
b: to qualify as bail or surety

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify

"Justification" is defined as follows:

1 a: the act or an instance of justifying something : vindication
b: an acceptable reason for doing something : something that justifies an act or way of behaving

2: the act, process, or state of being justified by God (see justify sense 2a)

3: the process or result of justifying lines of text (see justify sense 3a)

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justification

None of that applies even remotely to the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, Brett.

[Joe_dallas]

So he used the wrong adjective, adverb, verb to describe the actions. The concept came across just fine. Beta Phi delta

[not guilty]

"So he used the wrong adjective, adverb, verb to describe the actions. The concept came across just fine. Beta Phi delta"

Are you speaking of Kazinski? Who used "justification" upthread as a noun, not as an adjective, adverb or verb?

The comedian Ron White had it right: You can't fix stupid!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDvQ77JP8nw

[Kazinski]

Come on don't be ridiculous.

"no justification other than confusion poor training and human error" can not be described as attempting to justify anything.

Well unless you think "confusion poor training and human error" are acceptable.

[not guilty]

Kazinski, I'm not the one who fecklessly chose your words.

Positing that "there is no justification other than" xyz presupposes that xyz is indeed a justification, because there can be no other.

If you meant to say "there is no justification", then why the hell did you write anything else? As the Sesame Street jingle goes, one of these things is not like the other.

When Dorothy Gale clicked the heels of her ruby slippers together and famously proclaimed, "There's no place like home!" she was not declaring that she was in fact homeless. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NFWMBE-mQEc

[Commenter_XY]

Look in the mirror. Who is Pretti and the whack jobs trying to protect? Scumbag illegal aliens with rap sheets who victimize American citizens. Maybe you need to check your moral compass, counselor.

The detention and deportation of illegal aliens will not stop.

[Frank Drackman]

As the Late Great Rabbi Meir Kahane said about a different group of criminals,
"They Must Go" (Grossett & Dunlap, 1981)

Frank

[Sarcastr0]

Good lord you are just filled with hate.

[Frank Drackman]

Does an Oncologist "Hate" Cancer? You want to live under Sharia Law Iran-Air's ready when you are (even a lot of Iranians don't like living under Sharia Law)
Or maybe Somalia if you're really committed, they've already turned Minneapolis into Mogadishu on the Mississippi, Somali Air has Flights leaving every day.
Oh, they've only got 2 Jets, might want to upgrade.

Frank

[TwelveInchPianist]

If people want deportation to stop, they can convince Congress to create a system where they don't get deported.

But we can't have mobs deciding which laws get enforced any more than we can have mobs deciding which slate of electors get certified.

[Frank Drackman]

I think I love you. (no Homo)

[Malika la Maize]

I think this is a good point. Trump and the GOP won the election, they weren’t shy about their plans to aggressively enforce immigration.

I don’t think mobs should decide law enforcement. That’s what often happened in the Reconstruction South, for example.

On the other hand think of the civil rights movement. There were “conspiracies” to break laws and obstruct police enforcement of them. And arrest of those engaging in civil disobedience is legally warranted.

But I think a separate question is police use of force in dealing with protesters or anyone. It has to be reasonable and carefully policed. Do you think that’s what went on here?

[Sarcastr0]

They said they'd go after criminals; they did not.

But in general, I think one can always relitigate a campaign promise once it's being implemented. Via political speeches, protests, civil disobedience, even state-level action.
The American People are fickle and fractious; From our inception, our democracy has never meant an election was a shield against continued debate.

I'm thinking of the debate about slavery. Which sure had plenty of heated rhetoric, and even violence on the floor of the House.

[Malika la Maize]

Absolutely, I don’t mean to say it’s improper to protest any policy. It’s trickier when it rises to obstruction.

Again, that’s a separate question from the police response to any obstruction, which should always be reasonable and carefully policed.

[Mr. Bumble]

"They said they'd go after criminals; they did not."
Wrongo douche breath.

[Brett Bellmore]

"They said they'd go after criminals; they did not."

They said they'd prioritize criminals, they never, ever said they'd only deport criminals.

[Sarcastr0]

Miller had them hanging out in Home Depo parking lots, Brett.

Pretty weird way or prioritizing 'the worst of the worst.'

You don't really care about the lies, so long as your hate-on is satisfied against illegals and asylum seekers and whatever legal immigrants the admin wants to target.

[Swede425]

"They said they'd go after criminals".
And they are.
They're also picking up everybody else who doesn't belong here.
There's really only one reason to be upset about that.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Miller had them hanging out in Home Depo parking lots, Brett."

I don't care. I simply do not care. Every illegal alien, every single one of them, is a legitimate target for immigration law enforcement.

[Kazinski]

I go to Home Depot or Lowes all the time, I never see ICE, or illegals anymore for that matter.

That is because there are no sanctuary jurisdictions in my state, its amazing how orderly things can be when state and local authorities cooperate rather than obstruct federal authorities.

And Arizona has had more ICE arrests than Minnesota.

[Mr. Bumble]

@ Kazinski:
An inconvenient and unreported truth.

[MarkJawz]

They did not say they'd limit enforcement to criminals. Most illegals are not violent criminals, but that doesn't mean we want them here.

[SRG2]

If a group protested ICE's conduct - not policy, conduct - on the grounds that they were violating Constitutional rights and on occasion were acting with outright criminality, you would presumably condemn them for protecting illegals. Because when dealing with illegals, in your eyes no act by the government is too extreme, right? Or even if it would be, citizens should stay shtum nevertheless because the other side is so bad.

[Nelson]

“ Scumbag illegal aliens with rap sheets who victimize American citizens”

XY, you are better than this. Under Obama, more illegals were deported and the percentage who were criminals was over 90%. Under Trump the percentage is barely above 40% and dropping fast.

Vilifying people for resisting an increasingly violent and unaccountable government organization isn’t even close to trying to protect illegals. I oppose illegals, have made specific suggestions about how the process could be reformed to decrease the influx of illegals, and have applauded the efficient, targeted, and effective deportation regime under Obama.

I am also adamantly opposed to this iteration of ICE, with its violent tendencies, secret-police behavior, unaccountability, unprofessional actions, rights violations, paranoia, and ineffectiveness in targeting criminals. It is very easy to oppose illegals in America (particularly criminal illegals) while also opposing ICE under Trump.

I believe that ICE will have to be disbanded, most officers fired, and reconstituted under a different charter when Trump leaves office. Their behavior, tactics, and protection by the administration will make it impossible to differentiate between the xenophobic zealots who view all illegals as criminals and those who want to target and remove the smaller group of illegals who are actually dangerous criminals. Finite resources require targeting the dangerous ones, not Native American actresses on their way to the bus.

“ The detention and deportation of illegal aliens will not stop.”

I worry about the backlash from this. As ICE becomes more violent and repressive, resistance will grow. Americans don’t like bullies and thugs, which is exactly what ICE is becoming. That will set back efforts to remove criminal illegals in the future, since there will be zero trust in anything ICE and CBP say, with ample proof that they lie and perjure themselves about their tactics, actions, and behavior.

Our resources need to be focused on removing criminal illegals. We will never, ever be able to get rid of all illegals. It is impossible without devoting so much money and personnel to it that either the deficit skyrockets or cuts to defense become necessary, since that is the largest discretionary budget item.

Slow, steady, legally-compliant, criminal-focused removals is the only way to win this fight. Like Obama did.

[SRG2]

XY, you are better than this.

Doubtful

[MarkJawz]

Complete lie.

[jb]

Given that ICE is routinely harassing (including breaking down their doors without warrants) and now killing US Citizens, it seems like people could just be trying to protect their fellow citizens.

Also, you realize that the vast majority of the non-citizens that they are arresting and deporting don't have any sort of criminal record? If ICE were actually trying to just deport criminals I wouldn't expect you'd see any pushback at all.

[MarkJawz]

Who cares if they don't have any sort of criminal record? They're still illegal aliens who are a cultural and financial burden who don't belong here.

How many of them are paying more in taxes than it costs to feed, educate and provide health care to their "citizen" childreN?

[jb]

XY is the one pretending that opposition to ICE tactics is opposition to deporting criminals. Maybe pay attention to who people are responding to so you don't lose the thread of the argument.

[MarkJawz]

I haven't seen any proposals by leftists to effect millions of deportations of criminals and non-criminals that wouldn't require somewhat unorthodox and harsh tactics.

These Somalis and mestizos are not going to leave on their own, not as long as their shithole home countries are worse.

[loki13]

Look at XY.

XY has gone from demonizing brown people who get murdered with lies, to demonizing white American citizens who get murdered with lies.

There is no lie too big that XY won't bend over and spread those cheeks to happily accept!

[Sarcastr0]

The Somalis were supposed to be other; Minnesota was not supposed to band together, it was supposed to fracture on racial and/or religious lines.

These random individuals were not supposed to be brave; they were not supposed to coordinate on behalf of the outgroup ICE was protecting.

But they did. And now it's the empty men of ICE who are retreating with their leader's longcoat between their legs.

Civilization stood strong, and so frustrated empty MAGA like XY will now have to deal with the evident weakness of this administration. Despite all it's lies and violence; it found no purchase.

Maybe they'll try the insurrection act next; they do seem the type to deal with an ego injury like that.

[MarkJawz]

White Americans who have coordinated on behalf of Somalis and mestizos are indeed traitors, both to their country and their race.

[Riva]

Industrial level welfare fraud wasn't supposed to flourish under the cover of democrat officials inciting chaos to distract from their own corruption. Well funded and organized Sturmabteilung weren't supposed to be able to riot without consequence and employ violent insurgent tactics to obstruct federal law enforcement.

But they did. (And almost lynched a federal prison guard mistaken for an ICE agent. Accidents happen).

Be a shame to waste a perfectly good insurrection act in light of the thugs doing their best to engage in an insurrection.

[Malika la Maize]

He is not bothered in the least by murder.

[MarkJawz]

https://i.abcnewsfe.com/a/42c69ea3-6a20-43bc-9f04-eb80b9426206/alex-pretti-1-rt-gmh-260125_1769347402790_hpMain.jpg

You can mourn this balding faggot. I won't.

[Kazinski]

You are the lawyer, how does it usually work when someone tries to escape liability for some act pleading "confusion poor training and human error"?

My guess is its a poor defense, and it would be be better to just claim you did on purpose.

But the fact is its likely the truth.

[Sarcastr0]

What liability? Dude is dead.

it would be be better to just claim you did on purpose
Now we're getting into a weird retcon zone.

You seem all over the map even on what version of events you're pushing, much less your standards of morality.

[Brett Bellmore]

Whoosh. It would be the ICE agent trying to escape liability, and he's not dead.

[Magister]

But the ICE agents seem to be escaping investigation, let alone liability.

[Sarcastr0]

I did miss that in all the chaff Kaz is throwing.

It's a moot point; the admin seems determined to protect him no matter what. Cutting off the crime scene from local law enforcement, not releasing his name, reassigning him (not taking him off duty!)

I'd say you need to grapple with the terrible implications of that choice before you can start asking about legal upshots.

[Kazinski]

Do you have a cite for your claim there is no investigation?

CNN says there is one:

"The Department of Homeland Security’s investigation agency (HSI) is leading the federal investigation into the shooting, officials say, with the FBI acting in a supportive role – including by processing physical evidence."

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/26/politics/alex-pretti-where-investigations-stand

[Absaroka]

In your locale, do police departments usually investigate their own officer involved shootings, or do they hand it off to a disinterested third party like the state police or neighboring jurisdiction?

[Magister]

Running away from the justification offered; typical Kazinski.

For police, it's pretty clear that escaping liability with that sort of argument is very common. Although "the last few years" doesn't usually suggest an entire decade, you found four cases; in each, the police officer was prosecuted after an investigation and ceased to be a police officer even when acquitted. And all of them sparked a lot of protest, as in the recent ICE shootings. But what we're clearly not getting now is an investigation leading to a prosecution, let alone any discipline of the shooters.

[Kazinski]

I am not running away from the "justification offered", I am expressing my opinion about what happened and why. Its not up to me to justify what the officers did.

I cited 4 cases I had remembered from Minnesota, where local cops had shot someone also due to poor training or panic. There are probably even more, although that already seems like a lot. All of those shooting cases were initially at least called murder, but all of them were eventually designated as gross negligence.

And I expect the Pretti shooting will end up the same.

[Magister]

You are solely responsible for using the word "justification", but you keep trying to pretend you said something else. You don't even try to defend "last few years" even though the last one you list happened in 2021.

Chauvin and Noor were both convicted of murder, although Noor's conviction was reduced to manslaughter following appeals (because the state Supreme Court decided that the state could not prove he committed murder with a "depraved mind" which is a "generalized indifference to human life"). Chauvin in particular did not act out of poor training or panic, and of the others it could at best be said that this could not be disproved beyond a reasonable doubt. All four were investigated and prosecuted; the later three all ended in convictions, and the trajectory toward greater accountability is clear.

It might be that the Pretti shooting and the Good shooting would end up with no firing of those responsible let alone prosecution, but it's likely that the reason is that the Trump administration is investigating the victims more than the perpetrators while blocking the state from investigating. That's not ending up the same.

[Kazinski]

I'll just repeat what I said to NG:

"Come on don't be ridiculous.

"no justification other than confusion poor training and human error" can not be described as attempting to justify anything.

Well unless you think "confusion poor training and human error" are acceptable."

[Magister]

It explicitly states a justification, the part following the words "other than". Keep digging in the next Open Thread!

[not guilty]

"You are the lawyer, how does it usually work when someone tries to escape liability for some act pleading "confusion poor training and human error"?

"Justification" as a defense to homicide is a term of art, typically defined by statute. The burden of negating such a defense beyond a reasonable doubt at every stage prior to verdict is on the prosecution. A defense lawyer is obliged to offer the best argument available based on the evidence or the absence of evidence to show that the prosecution has not met its burden.

If the shooter(s) of Mr. Pretti want to claim justification, let them do so before twelve men and women in a courthouse in Minneapolis.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The fact the man participated in organized subversive enterprise justifies him being shot.

Ashley Babbitt rule.

[Kazinski]

Just because the officer got away with killing Babbit doesn't make it a rule.

But it is another case of poor training and panic.

[jay.tee]

Just because the officer got away with killing Babbit doesn't make it a rule.

But it is another case of poor training and panic.

Agree with the first part, but a caveat with the second sentence: Byrd was already proven to be negligent with his firearm and yet he was still on the force when he made another gross error in judgement.

Would also be good to understand if the ICE agents in question had similar issues.

[Frank Drackman]

In a Sane world Chauvin would have been given a promotion, maybe some coupons for Dinner at the Sizzler, and a few days off for ridding the world of a piece of Human Flotsam (or is it Jetsam? I can never remember which is which).
Which isn't even right, because it was Floyd George who got rid of Floyd George.

Frank

[Malika la Maize]

Deranged person who can’t write basic English decides who is worthy of life and death. MAGA in a nutshell.

[Frank Drackman]

That's why Peoples hate Doctors (Real Doctors, the Sawbones variety) we don't write good Engrish and we tell it like it is.
Also we're rich and good looking.

Frank

[Commenter_XY]

Kaz...Is this your 'mistakes were made' moment? 🙂

[Kazinski]

Lots of mistakes have been made.

Likely one of the first was Jefferson accepting Minnesota as part of the deal in the Louisiana purchase in the first place.

But none were mine.

[Frank Drackman]

It's where the Mississippi (anyone else learn to spell it by "M, I, Crooked Letter, Crooked Letter, I, Crooked Letter Crooked Letter, I, Humpback Humpback, I" ???) River originates, pretty important to control that spot. Pretty much the reason Jefferson bought it.

Frank

[Stephen Lathrop]

Kazinski — Mistakes were made.

Bringing the passive voice to a moral outrage is not only a mistake, it is a culpable self-serving one. You have been doing it to support murder on behalf of a policy you do not want halted. Although it should not matter to you who deserves protection against being murdered, you have gone so far into depravity that it plainly does matter to you. You object only to the murder of the wrong people.

If we were to treat you like an actual person with moral agency, instead of a mere obnoxious pseudonym, we would tell you to stop commenting and reflect.

If you were not permitted to hide behind a pseudonym, of course you would not publish world-wide any of this crap you have been writing. You plainly do understand the social opprobrium it would bring you if the people around you knew what you advocate. Please reflect on what that means about you, your use of a pseudonym, and what you advocate.

[Kazinski]

Not my words.

But sure, and the very first mistake made that night was Pretti deciding to arm himself.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t engage in your 2nd Amendment rights.

[Kazinski]

There is a right to keep and bear arms, lawfully.

Someone that commits a crime while armed is an outlaw.

[MoreCurious]

What crime? Please enlighten us.

[Kazinski]

Alledgedly Obstructing a federal officer. Same as Ms. Good.

[Malika la Maize]

What a pathetic whataboutism.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't be so hard on yourself.

[Mr. Bumble]

Don't say "hard" in front of Qualika.

[Frank Drackman]

Don't do anything in "front" of Queenie, especially tying your shoes.

[Kazinski]

its called case law and precedent. Generally the law likes to handle similar things in a like manner.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s not case law. You’re not making a legal point, you’re trying to say “this certainly is questionable but hey have you heard there were questionable shootings, and in MN!!!”

[Kazinski]

I was making a point about how the legal system handles things when there there is culpability but not intent with officer involved shootings.

There has not been a full investigation yet, but based on the alleged facts I think it was confusion, poor training, and panic that caused the shooting.

And I have given several examples of how local authorities have handled those instances, and the charges they have brought, and how the juries treated them.

If you have some counter examples then why don't you present them.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Let's not forget Daniel Shaver. But there's a difference between compliant suspects, like Philando Castille and Daniel Shaver, who get shot, and non-compliant ones who create chaos and confusion that leads to unfortunate circumstances.

We still don't have all of the information on the Pretti shooting, and there's plenty of potential scenarios other than cold blooded murder. I still think it's possible that, after hearing "gun" the BPA mistook the cell phone for a gun.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I also think a lot depends on what happened prior to the video. If they really were videotaping and observing without interfering, the detention an pepper spray might not have been reasonable, which would make the shooting unreasonable.

Hopefully more facts and video will come out.

[Longtobefree]

He was violently resisting when the pepper spray was used.

What I want before deciding is a full speed playback from the officers perspective.
All those potentially doctored, slow motion videos were not available to the officer engaged with the man resisting arrest.

[jb]

Would be nice if ICE actually used body cams, yes?

[jay.tee]

In this case, they allegedly did. What are the odds we see the footage?

But I agree - body cams should be mandatory for all agents.

[MoreCurious]

He was not violently resisting -- all the videos show that. He was trying to come to the aid of a woman who was being violently assaulted by thugs.

[Dr. Ed 2]

They were part of a planned insurrection intended to prevent ice from doing its job. An ideal world they’ll be doing 5 to 10 years in federal prison.

[MoreCurious]

If you think that was a planned insurrection, what do you think January 6th was?

[Joe_dallas]

TwelveInchPianist 2 hours ago
"I also think a lot depends on what happened prior to the video."

I agree with that comment.
currently there is not much publicly available info on what happened for the 5-10 minutes before the incident.

We do know he was active in the ice protest group/watch group,
We do know that he carried a gun with laser scope,
We do know that he was carrying an extra magazine,
We do know that he wasnt carrying any ID , including the carry license which is required when carrying the gun.

All the facts we do know are indicative of someone with an intent other than a peaceful protest.

but again, as Twelve mentioned, lets wait for more facts to come out.

[jay.tee]

We do know that he carried a gun with laser scope,
We do know that he was carrying an extra magazine,
We do know that he wasnt carrying any ID , including the carry license which is required when carrying the gun.

None of that matters or is even remotely relevant. Or, in the case of a laser scope, actually exists.

[Joe_dallas]

A - Its indicative of intent.
B - the left's focus has been only on the last 2-3 seconds of the event
C - As Twelve mentioned, the 5-10 minutes preceding the event are highly relevant. There is absolutely no reason to ignore that time frame.

[jay.tee]

I agree the time before the incident is highly relevant, so no disagreement there.

However, carrying a weapon is no more indicative of intending to commit violence than wearing your seatbelt is of intending to crash your car. The red dot sight, extra mag, and lack of ID are similarly irrelevant.

[Joe_dallas]

Wrong - those actions are indicative of looking for trouble, which are highly relevant.

Why chose to ignore them? - We know the answer, they dont fit the narrative.

[Malika la Maize]

Why is legally carrying a gun and laser scope “looking for trouble?”

What does this have to do with the shooting?

[Joe_dallas]

Its been explained multiple times - it goes to demonstrate a frame of mind. Its indicative of planning to create trouble.

Try basic comprehension of the subject.

[Stephen Lathrop]

TIP — ". . . chaos and confusion that leads to unfortunate circumstances."

See my comment answering Kazinski above. The one about bringing the passive voice to a moral outrage.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Um, OK, see my comment that you responded to. The one that doesn't use the passive voice.

[Sarcastr0]

Kaz on Sunday: "Idiots carrying guns is bad.

Someone going someplace with the intention to obstruct federal officials while armed is an idiot.

Committing any crime while armed is idiotic, it opens you up to enormous multiplicitive penalties even if it doesn't leave you dead."

Blaming the victim, AND also the shooter. Though blaming the shooter came about only after Trump reassigned Bovino and pulled back from the whole thing.

Supporting this admin takes a lot of agility!

[Kazinski]

I didn't know enough of the facts then to know whether the shooter was at fault then, I'm not sure I do even now, but based on the alleged facts that's my opinion.

And its still my opinion that it was idiotic for Pretti to go armed when he specifically intended to confront police.

You never carry so you don't ever have to consider when you go out where you are going, what you are likely to encounter, and whether you should leave the gun at home. Generally every thinking CCW, or constitutional carrier does think about that before they leave the house.

[Joe_dallas]

Kazinski 8 minutes ago
"And its still my opinion that it was idiotic for Pretti to go armed when he specifically intended to confront police."

Agreed - Its difficult to defend Pretti' actions and condemn the the agent based on events occurring over a span of 2-3 seconds and disregard the events and actions occurring over a span of the last 4-10 minutes and over the span of 24-36 hours. Pretti definitely showed up to cause trouble.

[Malika la Maize]

And should be executed?

[Riva]

There are likely several exceptions explanations but it is highly unlikely any rent-a-trolls on this site are interested in a reasonable discussion. But I agree, if left to the warmth of state “justice,” life would not be easy for the ICE agents involved here.

Some other questions arise though. What’s the likely explanation for him being armed and onsite and obstructing federal law enforcement? Here’s another one, what’s the likely explanation for the complete dereliction of duty of Minnesota police authorities to keep the peace and restrain the apparently organized and well funded groups sowing chaos in their state?

[Malika la Maize]

Bots are disembodied I get it but there’s nothing wrong with actual persons legally carrying.

[Kazinski]

If I drive over to the Circle K to get gas and chips and am armed it is perfectly legal, but if I decide to shoplift the chips now I am a felon.

[David Nieporent]

I am not sure why you think that. If you decide to brandish the firearm you are, but I think that notion relies on a misunderstanding of the concept of "shoplifting."

[MoreCurious]

So you're suggesting that the local and state police should have confronted the ICE thugs in order "to keep the peace?"

[Riva]

No, I’m suggesting that state and local authorities actually do their jobs and protect the public from the democrats’ Brownshirts.

[MoreCurious]

The only ones endangering the public were the ICE agents.

[Riva]

Sorry, I should have noted mostly peaceful Brownshirts who would never bite off your finger, try to run you down, riot near your hotel, or otherwise harass you, as long as you can assure them you’re not a federal officer enforcing federal law. And of course, as long as you don’t make the mistake of actually expressing any viewpoints contrary to theirs. Or just ask them to be quiet. Or just wear a red hat.

[bernard11]

There likely is no justification other than confusion poor training and human error for the Alex Pretti shooting.

Tell us, Kazinski, who do you think is responsible for the poor quality of the training (not to mention careless recruiting)?

No one - it just came out of thin air? Or maybe Noem, or even Trump is responsible? I mean, does it take more than ordinary common sense to realize that the agents need to be well-trained?

In MA training to become a police officer lasts 29 weeks. ICE used to require 22 weeks, but it has recently been cut to about 8 weeks. Some of that was done by cutting Spanish language instruction.

Sure. Of what possible use could a knowledge of Spanish be to an immigration agent ?

Are you willing to concede that your excuse is that the higher-ups are incompetent fools?

[Kazinski]

Its endemic in Law enforcement.
At the Federal level.
At the State level.
At the County level.
At the City level.
And lets not forget Tribal police.

[bernard11]

Its endemic in Law enforcement.

What is? How do you know? This is just "Gee, everyone does it. Why make a big deal?"

And so fucking what?

How does that exonerate Noem and Trump?

Look what they do:

They hire anyone who walks in off the street.

They provide inadequate training.

The VP, no less, tells them they are immune from prosecution.

Then they give them a gun and a mask (no badge) and tell them to round up illegals, by any means necessary.

They say "Don't worry about collateral damage. Whatever happens Noem and Trump will make up some lies and spout them instantly as needed."

They blame the victims - "domestic terrorists," "planning a massacre," etc.

And your excuse is "Everyone does it." Absolutely pathetic, evil, in fact.

[Kazinski]

Its not an excuse, its the truth.

I have been the victim of police brutality in the 70's.

I had a cop pull a gun on me when I was peacefully walking home from the pool hall in the 80's, because the cop thought that my pool cue case might have a rifle in it.

My brother had his house broken into and searched by the police without a warrant when nobody was home when they were looking for his roommate.

Its lived experience that cops are poorly trained, dealing with them is dangerous, and they don't care much about the bill of rights.

And while none of these lived experiences have been with federal officers, I don't see any reason why they are different especially considering Ruby Ridge, Waco, Jan 6th, etc.

I don't think its worse or better under Trump. Well actually I do think its better than it was under Johnson and Nixon.

[Dr. Ed 2]

An intrepid journalist has penetrated the criminal conspiracy in Minneapolis. https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2026/01/26/link-to-walzs-administration-in-anti-ice-signal-chats-n2198511

It really is organized, subversion, and both the individuals who have died were part of it.

What this says to me is that there’s going to be criminal liability for the people who organize this which includes, at the minimum, a key advisor to Governor Tampon. Reportedly, the FBI is investigating this, which may be why Tampon Tim is now willing to cooperate with Trump. And like Governor Bridgegate, they toss his staff under the bus to save himself.

And as to the two magazines, or clips, or whatever it is, I’m supposed to call the racks of ammo, what is the possibility than our late registered nurse might actually been looking for an opportunity to go out in the blaze of glory? To kill 10 or 20 iceman? Or like the BLM guy in Texas who killed five cops I would’ve gotten away with it except for an exploding robot, kill some iceman without dying himself?

What’s the possibility that the signal traffic may have him discussing doing this? And you know the NSA gets absolutely everything, and if Trump ordered the NSA to give him all of the Minnesota target traffic, he might have this…

I think we’re looking in our new ball game here.

[bloocow2]

"And as to the two magazines, or clips, or whatever it is, I’m supposed to call the racks of ammo, what is the possibility than our late registered nurse might actually been looking for an opportunity to go out in the blaze of glory?"

So, your argument is that the man who just got shot 9 times... wanted to die?

What on earth is wrong with you? You've seen the same videos as everyone else. Most people at this point at least want an investigation, and even administration officials are backing away from the position that this guy at all deserved to get killed.

You don't have to be against deportation, or what ICE is doing. You don't have to politically agree with the protestors, or personally like either of the American citizens who have died. You don't even have to say that the officers are definitely guilty of murder or whatever.

All you have to do is look at the videos of this thing. Forget about the guy's intent; it's completely irrelevant to what happened. Which is that he got involved in an altercation, pepper sprayed, tackled to the ground, had his gun taken off him, and THEN got shot 9 times. It's all right there! You can watch it!

Maybe you can argue that it was an accident, or that the guy's gun went off and the officers freaked out, or what have you. That will hopefully come out in an investigation. So how about you just say that it should be investigated, instead of wildly speculating that this guy wanted to commit suicide by cop? It makes you look like a crazy person.

Literally just look at what is in front of you. That's all you have to do.

[Kazinski]

You aren't an expert and don't know what the signs of "suicide by cop" are.

Even attacking over 20 unarmed congressmen playing baseball with an assault weapon (aka modern sporting rifle), which would seem to a mass assassination attempt or domestic terrorism, turned out to be "suicide by cop" when properly assessed by experts, despite almost fatally wounding a senior GOP congressman, and extensive history of political biases, and hate for the GOP.

[Sarcastr0]

So you're saying there's a chance!

Pathetic. Straw-grasping to condemn a dead man.

This guy must have been a fucking saint given the energy the admin spends on insisting the victims it kills are no angels, and how they came up with nothing.

But here is Kaz taking the lack of any untowards information and trying to use it to establish SOMETHING bad must have been in the offing.

I suppose it's good he also found the time to say mistakes were made, though a day late and a dollar short.

[Malika la Maize]

He literally led with “mistakes were probably made here, but WHADDABOUT some LEO mistakes in the past? Huh? And in MINNESOTA no less, huh? Right?”

It’s pathetic.

[Kazinski]

Whooosh.

I was referring to the heavily criticised determination by the FBI that that the mass shooting at the Congressional Baseball game practice was suicide by cop, instead of domestic terrorism.

A determination made by "experts" because they didn't want to label a left wing radical a domestic terrorist. And it has since been corrected.

[Malika la Maize]

It’s pathetic to bring it up here. Your game was “well, maybe Pettri’s killing was suicide by cop because, heh, I’ve got this past axe to grind about that!”

[Kazinski]

No that wasn't my point.

His actions didn't fit that scenario at all, so it would be a stupid argument.

When I make an argument I am generally pretty plain about it.

[bernard11]

Sure sounds to me as if that was your point.

Anyway, the Congressional baseball shooting was almost nine years ago, but it has become a standard part of the Republican "whatabout" book, - just ask Brett - but it has zero relevance here.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's all right there! You can watch it!"

This is true. It's not remotely like the Renee Good shooting where you can argue about how the cop should have responded to the threat, but the threat objectively existed. This was, simply, a bad shot. 9 of them.

[Sarcastr0]

You're still terrible and out to lunch on what you see in that video.

The fact that you bring it up here to dilute what would otherwise be a full condemnation of the admin is telling.

Still, miles ahead of Kaz. Who is miles ahead of the Ed/Michael/etc. posters still insisting this was a good shoot, ICE was blameless and Bovino was sent to a farm upstate.

[Brett Bellmore]

I said the threat objectively existed. That would hardly be interpreted by anybody who knows you as suggesting that you'd acknowledge it.

I brought it up to acknowledge that this case is different from the previous one.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — They are part and parcel. As is your comment, with regard to Kazinski's dead-to-morality fecklessness.

You do redeem your character somewhat by omitting use of a pseudonym. Unfortunately, given what you say, that difference merely suggests you a suffer a tin ear for social convention.

[Sarcastr0]

You've backed away from your 2A zealotry, and stuck with your telepathy to determine this guy was 'up to no good.'

Don't pretend you've been super cool about this second shooting. You've been inconsistent and conspiratorial.

But better than Kaz, and miles ahead of the 'open the liberal bloodgates' crew.

[Brett Bellmore]

I am as much a 2nd amendment zealot as ever, you're just incapable of understanding how 2nd amendment zealots think.

[Sarcastr0]

Haha, no.

You've outflanked me on gun control with your 'exercise your carry right so long as you don't think you'll end up irritating the government' take.

[jay.tee]

Hark, the king of strawmen has spoken!

Of course, “irritating the government” has nothing to do with the Second Amendment nor with the case of Mr. Pretti.

[grb]

Brett Bellmore : " .... but the threat objectively existed."

Sigh. Good’s murder yet again! Let’s review the details:

1. Ross is moving across the front of Goods car when she backs up and cranks the wheel. Right from the start things are weird. I’ve had the same experience as Ross a few times. A person about to turn is looking down the street, doesn’t see me, and starts to pull out. I have to jump away from the car. Since my attention is forward, I'm caught by surprise. But all of Ross’ focus is on the car. He sees it backing up. He sees the wheels go hard over. How could he not? So then how is he caught by surprise?

2. Answer : He isn’t. Like anyone else would, he slides out the way of the vehicle. Since it is veering away from him with every inch forward, it’s probable the car didn’t even touch him. Even if it did, it was only a light graze. But now he has an excuse for murder.

3. A 2014 independent review of 67 cases in which Border Patrol agents used deadly force found that some "agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers…” (see link below) The Border Patrol revised their standards to explicitly ban the practice. And working for Border Patrol in the area where this was cited? Ross. Hopefully the Minnesota murder investigation looks into this.

4. So, completely clear of the car and not in its path, Ross makes his first attempt to murder Good. And here are two odd things: (a) Righties have this weird belief cops can’t process information as quickly as normal people. Per them, Ross couldn’t have known he was complete free of the car before his first shot. But when I’ve jump clear of a car, I’ve immediately known I’m clear of the car. (b) And though Ross is completely unaware of his position in space and time (per the Right), the car is already pulling clear of him and veering away. He has to lean his body forward to even squeeze a shot into the very corner of the windshield. Isn’t it strange how the murderer was aware enough for that?

5. The second murder attempt was thru the driver’s side window as the car passed by Ross.

6. The third murder attempt was gangland execution-style, point-blank range, into the side of the head while the car past well-clear of Ross (note : due to the coverup, there’s been no autopsy report information released)

7. The car continued on and crashed. Ross muttered “fucking bitch” and walked over to admire his handiwork. Officers at the scene refused available medical treatment for the dying Good. The coverup began.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/02/27/283455547/report-criticizes-border-patrols-use-of-force

[grb]

Apologies for missing this, but we do have autopsy information on the murder victim from an independent pathologist hired by her family:

"An autopsy commissioned by the family of Renee Good, who was fatally shot by an immigration officer in Minneapolis this month, found that she suffered three clear gunshot wounds, including one to her head, lawyers for her family said Wednesday.

One of the injuries was to Good’s left forearm, the lawyers said in a statement, while another gunshot struck her right breast without piercing major organs. Neither of those wounds was immediately life-threatening, the attorneys said.

A third shot entered the left side of Good’s head near the temple and exited on the right side, according to the statement, and she also appeared to have sustained a graze wound."

I'm guessing the sequence listed above corresponds to the order of Ross' three murder attempts. The first shot barely worked into the corner of the windshield because the car was clear, pulling away, and veering off? That was the left arm injury. The second shot fired thru the driverside window at an angle? That was the wound to her right breast. Neither of those were life-threatening. It was the third execution-style bullet that accomplished the murder.

While the car was passing well-clear of Ross.....

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/renee-good-was-shot-head-autopsy-commissioned-family-finds-rcna255335

[Kenneth Almquist]

I also missed the autopsy report; thanks for posting this update. The full report is not available, but the press release is here:

https://www.rblaw.net/pressrelease-romanucci-blandin-releases-findings-from-independent-autopsy-of-renee-good

I doubt the autopsy was able to determine the order that the wounds occurred, but there doesn’t seem to be any possibility that the fatal shot was the first shot because that shot passed through the lower left corner of the windshield.

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, grb. The autopsy results are useful here as to determining that the shot fired through the driver's side window likely caused the fatal wound.

This tragedy was completely avoidable. Just Security has a helpful article compiling the policy guidelines on use of deadly force by officers of the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Patrol, and the Department of Justice, including guidelines as to firing guns at vehicles. https://www.justsecurity.org/128498/dhs-doj-cbp-policy-force-vehicles/

These guidelines of course are not dispositive as to what the Fourth Amendment requires in any particular situation -- which is governed by the SCOTUS decisions of Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U. S. 1 (1985),* and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), but they represent the considered judgment of public officials who have thought quite a bit about how to implement the Garner and Graham requirements.

Jonathan Ross appears to have violated his own DHS policies, which state in relevant part:

III. General Principles
…
C. Use of Safe Tactics

1. DHS LEOs should seek to employ tactics and techniques that effectively bring an incident under control while promoting the safety of LEOs and the public, and that minimize the risk of unintended injury or serious property damage. DHS LEOs should also avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force. [Boldface added.]
…

VI. Deadly Force
A. General Guidelines

1. …
a. DHS LEOs may use deadly force only when necessary, that is when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person.
b. Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape. [Boldface added.]
...

B. Discharge of Firearms
…
2. Moving Vehicles, Vessels, Aircraft, or other Conveyances

a. DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance.

Agent Ross, by crossing over in front of a vehicle with the suspect at the wheel while the engine running, failed to "avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing [hi]msel[f] in [a] position in which [he foreseeably may] have [had] no alternative to using deadly force.

Deadly force -- here the third shot fired through the window -- here was "used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject." Assuming arguendo that there was some contact between the vehicle and the agent, while he was still on his feet beside the driver's window of the vehicle, neither he nor any agent or bystander then faced any "significant threat of death or serious physical harm". There was no "hazard[] that may [have been] posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-of-control conveyance." The driver was in control of her vehicle and was heading away from officers and bystanders.

If an agent of the FBI, DEA, BATF, U.S. Marshal's Service or the Bureau of Prisons had discharged a firearm under similar circumstances, that would have violated the Department of Justice Policy Manual:

DEADLY FORCE

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

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

Customs and Border Policy states:

2. Except where otherwise required by inspections or other operations, Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid standing directly in front of or behind a subject vehicle. Officers/agents should not place themselves in the path of a moving vehicle or use their body to block a vehicle’s path.
3. Authorized Officers/Agents should avoid intentionally and unreasonably placing themselves in positions in which they have no alternative to using deadly force. [Boldface added.]

______________________
* Based upon the Fourth Amendment reasonableness standard, the Court in Garner held that:

The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. . . . A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.

471 U.S. at 8-9. The Court in Grahamopined, citing Garner:

Because "[t]he test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application," Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 441 U.S. 559 (1979), however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. See Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. at 471 U. S. 8-9 (the question is "whether the totality of the circumstances justifie[s] a particular sort of. . . seizure").

490 U.S. at 396.

[bernard11]

the threat objectively existed

No. It didn't. Ross may or may not have thought he was under threat, but in fact there is no reason to think Good was threatening to hit him with her car.

The existence of the threat was purely subjective - it was all in Ross' mind.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...in fact there is no reason to think Good was threatening to hit him with her car..."

Other than the fact that she drove her car toward him and may have hit him.

"The existence of the threat was purely subjective - it was all in Ross' mind."

Part of the problem is that lawyers don't know what objective means. Ross had an objectively reasonable belief that he was in danger. Which is a subjective standard.

[grb]

TwelveInchPianist : "Ross had an objectively reasonable belief that he was in danger."

Not even close. Having to take a couple of steps to the side to avoid a car you see coming is no justification for cold-blooded murder, particularly since the car was veering away from Ross every inch it moved forward.

What you actually mean is Ross had an "excuse" to murder which you think adequate as long as you look at it crosseyed & slightly askew. And since you applaud his needless execution of Good, you pretend he faced "danger". An excuse to murder is perfectly fine with you.

Ross wanted a reason to kill. You think that's fine. Why bother trying to dress that ugliness up in silly bullshit?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Having to take a couple of steps to the side to avoid a car you see coming is no justification for cold-blooded murder,"

Of course not. It's not cold-blooded murder when you reasonably fear being run over.

[not guilty]

"Part of the problem is that lawyers don't know what objective means. Ross had an objectively reasonable belief that he was in danger. Which is a subjective standard."

You couldn't be more wrong, TIP. SCOTUS has expressly rejected application of "a subjective standard" in determining whether an LEO's belief is objectively reasonable:

The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of "objective reasonableness" under the circumstances, and subjective concepts like "malice" and "sadism" have no proper place in that inquiry.

>
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 399 (1989). The Court there elaborated:

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

Because petitioner's excessive force claim is one arising under the Fourth Amendment, the Court of Appeals erred in analyzing it under the four-part Johnson v. Glick test. That test, which requires consideration of whether the individual officers acted in "good faith" or "maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm," is incompatible with a proper Fourth Amendment analysis. We do not agree with the Court of Appeals' suggestion, see 827 F.2d at 948, that the "malicious and sadistic" inquiry is merely another way of describing conduct that is objectively unreasonable under the circumstances. Whatever the empirical correlations between "malicious and sadistic" behavior and objective unreasonableness may be, the fact remains that the "malicious and sadistic" factor puts in issue the subjective motivations of the individual officers, which our prior cases make clear has no bearing on whether a particular seizure is "unreasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Nor do we agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion, see id. at 948, n.3, that, because the subjective motivations of the individual officers are of central importance in deciding whether force used against a convicted prisoner violates the Eighth Amendment, see Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. at 475 U.S. 320-321, it cannot be reversible error to inquire into them in deciding whether force used against a suspect or arrestee violates the Fourth Amendment. Differing standards under the Fourth and Eighth Amendments are hardly surprising: the terms "cruel" and "punishment" clearly suggest some inquiry into subjective state of mind, whereas the term "unreasonable" does not. Moreover, the less protective Eighth Amendment standard applies "only after the State has complied with the constitutional guarantees traditionally associated with criminal prosecutions." Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651, 430 U.S. 671, n.40 (1977). The Fourth Amendment inquiry is one of "objective reasonableness" under the circumstances, and subjective concepts like "malice" and "sadism" have no proper place in that inquiry.

490 U.S. at 397-399.

As Mark Twain (may have) said, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so.” The dilettantes on these comment threads, who have never tried to persuade a judge or jury of anything, illustrate that maxim routinely and profusely.

[hobie]

"Literally just look at what is in front of you. That's all you have to do."

I appreciate that a fresh, neutral person has come in here to give a reminder of what a normal person thinks when they see MAGA thinking at work. Unfortunately, bloocow, trying to appeal to what these men were in the before times is simply impossible.

You're flabbergasted that we have one set of objective facts - filmed ad nauseum - with one group seeing sunshine and the other hell. America has already passed it's inflection point: J6.

Until last year, whether any of you want to believe this or not, the Europeans have always thought of America as the child they've birthed. They have been proud of watching us grow. In my expat groups, my European friends constantly and naively assume we're gonna snap out of it. But I've had to tell them that MAGA Americans are permanently lost. They're never coming back.

In other words, you're wasting your time.

[Brett Bellmore]

LOL! Try another one, I've been on this Earth for 67 years now, and Europe has hated America for decades now.

[hobie]

No they don't. That's just you being more of the same that I just explained to bloocow.

[Mr. Bumble]

Maybe more like jealousy and envy.

[Brett Bellmore]

Fair.

[Sarcastr0]

“Europe has hated America for decades” is quite the take.

Might say more about you than them though.

[Mr. Bumble]

Douche speaks.

[Sarcastr0]

I mean, individuals around here sure do love hating on Europeans around here, but until this Greenland thing, even after the tariffs, both the governments and people of both countries were pretty happy with one another.

Notably, the overlap between posters here saying bigoted delusional shit like the UK is a Muslim country, or that Germany must elect the AfD to survive, have a ton of overlap with the people who attack European (or Japanese) posters as somehow illegitimate.

[SRG2]

LOL! Try another one, I've been on this Earth for 67 years now, and Europe has hated America for decades now.

It seems that age has brought you neither knowledge nor wisdom.

To the extent one can generalise at all as though Europe were a single consistent entity - itself a questionable assumption - hate never entered into it. Certainly aspects of US foreign policy were unappealing, and the more liberal parts of Europe found that America's racism seemed at odds with its proclamation of virtue.

But I note that in my experience, seppos tend to have little idea how the US is perceived - look at all those morons who think that Trump is respected globally and that under him US's global reputation has been restored - and invent narratives to fit their preconceptions.

[loki13]

You know how Americans are, Sacrasto. When they travel abroad, all they do is find other Americans and complain about how they can't get a decent cheeseburger.

Seriously, as an American who has spent a significant amount of time abroad (more than half of my life), I often forget just how little most Americans actually know about the rest of the world, but these threads usually remind me.

[Sarcastr0]

SG2 and I aren't quite the same, but your comment applies to both of ours.

I mean, I've gotten asked about Trump when I've gone abroad, both for business and for pleasure. But more out of bewilderment than hostility.

Though I haven't been since April 1: Liberation Day.

[jay.tee]

SRG2 posted, and I agree with:

To the extent one can generalise at all as though Europe were a single consistent entity - itself a questionable assumption - hate never entered into it.

Then loki13 posted an ignorant generalization, in support? of SRG2:

You know how Americans are, Sacrasto. When they travel abroad, all they do is find other Americans and complain about how they can't get a decent cheeseburger.

Amazing. And it’s all still completely vibes-based.

[Sarcastr0]

jt, did it occur to you that loki, me, and SRG2 (I think) are Americans, and loki might not actually be slamming us?

That should have your 'maybe there some rhetoric and not pure literal truth' antennae perked at least.

[SRG2]

I am a naturalised American but I'm originally British (and still retain that nationality and RP speech - oh, and spelling as well.)

[Sarcastr0]

Not just British, RP British!

[SRG2]

Correct. But three years ago I experienced a major change to my speech. I no longer spoke the Queen's English. I began speaking the King's English. (Mine isn't quite as cut-glass as Chazza's, though.)

[Bob from Ohio]

"seppos "

Never heard of this before as a term for Americans. Your use is telling based on its origination.

[SRG2]

I have hardly kept my English origins under wraps. And my father was born in South Hackney, so I am more entitled to use rhyming slang than most.

I am pleased you are now just a tiny bit more educated than you were before.

[MoreCurious]

If you've ever traveled extensively in Europe, as many of us have, you'd know that your assertion is simply wrong. Or maybe you're one of those loud, obnoxious Americans that give the rest of us a bad name.

[bernard11]

I've been on this Earth for 67 years now, and Europe has hated America for decades now.

How many times have you been to Europe? Do you have friends there, casual acquaintances, relatives? I have visited, often, and do in fact have friends, acquaintances, and a relative or two.

Europe does not hate America. Far from it. Some Europeans may think we're a bit strange, as many Americans think Europeans are.

And you're doing your usual nonsense. You likely have an anecdote up your sleeve, ad are generalizing that to all of Europe. It's a stupid, maddening habit of yours.

[Dr. Ed 2]

OK
Subversion justifying firing squad

I think the army should go in and shoot those assholes.

Survivor should be shot again

[Malika la Maize]

Disaffected liberal approved!

[Estragon]

The frustration at the lack of brutality is palpable

[not guilty]

Criminal conspiracy in Minneapolis, huh?

A conspiracy is a partnership in crime. It has ingredients, as well as implications, distinct from the completion of the unlawful project. Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 664 (1946). Mere knowledge of an illegal act or association with an individual engaged in illegal conduct is not enough to prove a person has joined a conspiracy. United States v. Raymond, 793 F.2d 928, 932 (8th Cir. 1986). The defendants need not have knowledge of every detail or part of a conspiracy as long as the evidence overall shows that the defendants agreed to the essential nature of the conspiracy. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U.S. 539, 557 (1947).

"A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense." Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 65 (1997). Agreement among the coconspirators to commit an unlawful act is the essence of the crime. Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975).

Let's put some meat on those bones here, Dr. Ed 2. What federal statute criminalizes the agreement that you posit? What is the objective of the conspiracy? What federal statute(s), if any, criminalize the target offense?

Who are the conspirators? When did the conspiracy begin? Did any other conspirator(s) subsequently join the conspiracy? If so, when? What are the manner and means by which the conspiratorial objective was to be accomplished?

You have made the ipse dixit assertion that "It really is organized, subversion, and both the individuals who have died were part of it." What facts, if any, suggest that Alex Pretti was a party to any conspiratorial agreement? When did he join any such conspiracy?

What facts, if any, suggest that Renee Good was a party to any conspiratorial agreement? When did she join any such conspiracy?

[Michael P]

These protestors organize to violently interfere with federal law enforcement officers in the course of their duties, in violation of 18 USC sections 111 and 372. Their efforts to dox the officers represent an intent to violate sections 115 and 119. They are teaching, equipping, organizing and participating in civil disorder as prohibited within section 231. They could be charged under sections 2383 or 2384 or both. The organizers likely violate section 373 in addition, and the conspiracy might further qualify as a criminal street gang under section 521. The involvement of foreign individuals raises the question of whether the group is "subject to foreign influence" and thus required to register under section 2386.

Cam Higby and others have been documenting the ongoing use of Signal to organize the conspiracy, where members of those Signal groups are screened and join them to further the conspiracy. One of the organizers confirmed that Alex Pretti was a member. It is likely that Nicole Good was a member of those groups, and she indicated that she recruited Renee Good to the conspiracy in the immediate aftermath of Renee's death.

[Sarcastr0]

Michael just judge jury executioner-ing it up here.

I see both novel facts and novel law. With these hot takes, he could end up anywhere, folks!

[Dr. Ed 2]

Is documented that Nicole Goode was member, and on duty.

[David Nieporent]

There is no "Nicole Good," a "member" of what? And what does "on duty" even mean?

[Joe_dallas]

NG - another legal analysis pretending the applicable facts dont exist.

[John F. Carr]

If I wanted to take out some of a large group of law enforcement I wouldn't let them get their hands on me first. He had a supportive crowd. He could go to the front of the crowd, take a few shots from across the street, and try to disappear back into the crowd. And Trump would have a casus belli.

[Dr. Ed 2]

I don’t think that either he nor Renee Good were planning on being arrested. Remember, he wasn’t initially the person pushed back.

However, you are a rational person and do not fall into the trap of presuming that someone who’s going to pull some stuff like this is also rational. They’re inherently not.

[jb]

As I pointed this out to Michael P the other day, this was not exactly some big secret that needed right wing bloggers to help uncover it. Here's an article by someone who participates in these activities from last week:

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2026/01/arrested-for-observing-ice-minnesota-lesson.html

Of course, if you look at what's being organized, suddenly all the talk about violently obstructing ICE in a web of criminality falls apart. At least according to the Slate narrative, the author was arrested just for filming ICE from a distance, and throughout both its narrative and the messages uncovered by the MAGA blogs, there's no mention of anything other than observing ICE. Actually, I take that back--there is one message about a pizza joint refusing to service ICE. I'm sure someone will argue that's a crime, but we already had this conversation when the Hilton property was cancelling ICE reservations.

tl;dr: This isn't some big secret, because nothing illegal is being coordinated.

[jay.tee]

As I pointed out above, not sure that’s true. How are they looking up registration data for license plates?

And, if the references to local law enforcement and politicians reveal coordination or leadership there, things will get a bit more complicated.

[David Nieporent]

How are they looking up registration data for license plates?

They aren't. Where on earth did you get the idea they were?

[Michael P]

I bet you believe all the criminals who insist they didn't do a thing wrong, except be in the wrong place when the cops decided to hassle them over nothing.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The currently is turmoil and tumult is the middle kingdom.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/china-experts-raise-alarms-over-xi-s-sweeping-military-purge/ar-AA1V27LH

I’m wondering if this is the start of the second Chinese revolution, something I’ve been expecting for over a decade now.

The other thing here is it China depends on cheap, highly discounted oil from both Venezuela and Iran. China can’t afford to pay retail.

Even though Trump says he will sell Venezuelan oil to China. He’s not gonna sell it at a discount. They were able to get it before he’s gonna charge market prices which China can’t afford if China also loses the ability to buy discount sanctioned or any oil really serious trouble.

It may well be anyway because often times once you build a refinery that is able to deal with the sour high sulfur Venezuela crude, you have to have a certain sulfur level for the refinery to work. Don’t ask me why, but I’m told this is true.

So if we do the decent thing and help topple the Iranian dictatorship, we may solve most of the world’s problems.

[Kazinski]

Everyone likes a bargain, but the Chinese economy is not dependent on cut rate sanctioned oil. They are much more dependent on coal. Besides oil prices are actually low even at market rates as Hobie can tell you and adding Venezuelan oil now, and perhaps Russian and Iranian oil later to the global supply will just lower prices further. Oil prices are near the bottom of its post pandemic price range, and the spread between world market price and the dark fleet price was much lower during the Biden administration just a year ago, so its not like China's economy is built on sanctioned oil, they just take advantage of it when they can.

But yeah, take out the mullahs, but it has little to do with oil, other than hurting US oil producers, I don't care much about that.

[hobie]

I know you hayseeds don't think renewables work. But in less than twenty years, China will no longer need any oil and gas because of them things that don't work. And their gonna take the rest of the world with them.

[Mr. Bumble]

It's always a future that never quite gets here.
In twenty years all of those solar and wind units installed today will be in need of replacement

[hobie]

Don't worry, Bumble. We'll always need oil because of plastics etc.

[Mr. Bumble]

In twenty years China will still be getting most of its energy from coal.

[Martinned]

I would take that bet.

[hobie]

I would too!

[Mr. Bumble]

Assumes the three of us would be around in twenty years.

[hobie]

I won't take that bet!

[Krayt]

"The collapse of electric cars shows that when the corrupt ologarchs in government have rode up the stocks of the new industries they mandated, they can abandon and who the hell cares? They got theirs," he said cynically observed.

Sign me up for both predictions: continued use of fossil fuels, and only a small chance of being here in 20 years.

[jb]

The electric car market has not collapsed in China. Electric cars outsell gas cars now, and their market share is continuing to grow:

https://cleantechnica.com/2025/12/22/record-month-for-ev-sales-in-china/

[Martinned]

Hence the "would"...

[jb]

Lucky for China their rate of installing renewable capacity is increasing rapidly...

[jay.tee]

But, up to at least 2023, that has not translated into less reliance on coal and oil. In fact, the trend over the last 20 years is exactly the opposite: they’re up to almost 80% reliance on coal and oil.

[jb]

Hmm? They're down to ~60% from >80% 25 years ago:

https://ember-energy.org/countries-and-regions/china/

[jay.tee]

Not according to the IEA:

https://www.iea.org/countries/China/energy-mix

That’s based on actual generation, not capacity though.

[jb]

We're comparing apples and oranges. My data is just electricity; yours includes. stuff like fuel for cars. If you look at the breakout on your website for electricity, it seems to match my site.

[jay.tee]

IEA data for 2023 seems to agree: coal powered 61.3% of electricity generation in 2023.

However, IEA data shows that percentage increasing steadily over the past 20+ years, not dropping.

[Brett Bellmore]

In less than 20 years China will no longer need oil and gas because their population is imploding. They've been below replacement since 1990, but with their (Few, because of sex selective abortions!) fertile women aging out of being able to reproduce, reproduction is cratering.

In 20 years the pig in the python will be too old to be productive, and they'll be totally hosed.

[Sarcastr0]

That is not really speaking to the topic at hand, though. Which is about the viability of renewables, and not population controls.

[Brett Bellmore]

The topic at hand is their need for fossil fuels.

China is building ALL kinds of power plants. Fossil fuels, nuclear, hydro, (Most of their 'renewable' is hydro.) wind, and solar.

Wind and solar makes a bit of sense in China for the same reason wind used to be used in the US in the 1900's: Lack of distribution! China is a big country and most of it is poorly developed, and wind and solar might be intermittent and unreliable, but they're better than nothing when there's no distribution line to you from a more reliable power source.

Hydro is great because it's actually reliable, and in a totalitarian state flooding people's homes isn't a problem.

But they're really leaning into the nuclear, because nuclear is just objectively the best source of power we have now, reliable, scalable, will never run out.

What I'm saying is that their population is due to start dropping soon, and their economy will be hosed due to the inverted age pyramid, and consequently their NEED for power will drop off, and at that point the power source that will make the most sense to stop using will be fossil fuels, because the other sources have low marginals costs, and the fixed cost will have already been incurred.

[Sarcastr0]

"I know you hayseeds don't think renewables work."

So, you're wrong.

[Brett Bellmore]

Which part do you think I got wrong?

"Renewables" work, depending on what you mean by "work", but they have serious drawbacks if you want reliable energy. OTOH, China is building a lot of pumped storage hydro right now, which can stabilize the grid anyway, so they'll continue using it. But their mainstay for baseline power is going to be nuclear.

[Sarcastr0]

"The topic at hand is their need for fossil fuels." is belied by "I know you hayseeds don't think renewables work."

You want to argue a different thing, so you did.

And then you tried to claim that was what hobie was talking about all along.

A diversified approach is what a lot of folks have been arguing for. Not you, though. You insist the engineering for wind and solar will never get better, and so you argue to cut them out of the mix.

One might be forgiven for seeing it as a tailored to own the libs view of energy policy.

Except energy policy doesn't seem to be following your take.
So you bring in population dynamics to muddy the waters.
And engage with Drackman...you must be really desperate.

[Life of Brian]

You insist the engineering for wind and solar will never get better

The fundamental limits of wind and solar are beyond the realm of engineering. You certainly can wring out efficiencies around the edges, but if you're imagining you can eventually produce baseload on calm, cloudy days you've shifted from engineering to magic.

[Martinned]

Sure, either that or you might understand the concept of (negative) correlation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844024029220

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem, Martinned, is that it doesn't really matter about the correlation, what matters is that wind is wildly variable, and for all intents and purposes randomly so. To a lesser extent, the amount of sunlight you have available is also random, though the Sun at least predictably rises every day.

For solar, about 18 hours of storage plus enough over-capacity to get 24 hours worth of power on extremely overcast days is enough to make solar reliable, but at that point it's no longer cost-competitive with sources that just run 24/7 with downtime scheduled months in advance.

For wind, no amount of storage can guarantee that you won't eventually encounter a long enough calm period to end up with a brownout. Which is why you see renewable energy advocates tacitly demanding that people just get used to their power being unreliable.

Your own link admits that there would still be "intermittency", AKA brownouts. The negative correlation merely reduced it a bit, didn't eliminate it.

Now, in principle you could probably compensate for this with some kind of world-wide long range power grid, (Continent wide wouldn't be enough.) at the cost of having a system where your lights being on in North America was dependent on the political stability of countries thousands of miles away, because it would be so easy to bring the system down.

Eventually, of course, SPS will provide 24/7 reliable solar energy. Ground based wind will NEVER be reliable.

[Life of Brian]

It doesn't even take an engineer to observe the peppering of magnitude-free weasel words throughout that article (potentially, suggests, more reliable, and on and on).

That's well within the realm of wringing out efficiencies around the edges as I mentioned.

[Mr. Bumble]

Also, aside from times of low or no wind, high winds will also shut down wind energy production.

[ducksalad]

For wind, no amount of storage can guarantee that you won't eventually encounter a long enough calm period to end up with a brownout. Which is why you see renewable energy advocates tacitly demanding that people just get used to their power being unreliable.

All the hay in Kansas couldn't build a strawman this big.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's not a strawman, while the larger the scale the less the frequency, it is NOT unheard of for the wind to effectively stop blowing over most of a continent, so that even a continent-wide wind farm would be producing practically no power.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing about the viability of renewables is outside the known rules of physics.

Our engineering on renewables is nowhere near bumping into any rule of physics.
And *especially* batteries and energy transport is an area of constant ferment. New ion mixes, catalytic enhancement of existing ones (e.g. Lithium-ion), seawater, brine pools...it's an exciting time of steady progress in efficiency and storage capacity, and the continual chance of a real transformative breakthrough.

The engine for this work is both private industry's drive for efficiency in the subsidized market, and public funding of fundamental research based on the mission of specific federal agencies.

[ducksalad]

Brett, that's not the strawman.

The strawman is the part of about having to accept unreliability by going to pure renewables. Maybe Hobie thinks that but that's not really the plan of anybody running a power grid.

Also, while I agree that you can't economically build enough energy storage to avoid a brownout, you seem to be saying that's it's not even theoretically possible. Only in the sense that you can't theoretically rule out a whole cat quantum tunneling at once. If you're willing to spend the money and resources you can build enough storage to reduce the probability arbitrarily close to zero.

[Sarcastr0]

Brett continues to think current engineering limits are rules of physics.

Science can never surprise you, no point in trying.

[Life of Brian]

Assuming future improvements outside the known rules of physics is faith, not science.

[Brett Bellmore]

I literally said that solar power would be just fine when we get to using solar power satellites, because they're no longer subject to weather and being out of operation for 2/3 of the day.

But unless you're suggesting that unlimited energy storage is about to become free, only an idiot proposes relying on windmills for power in most places.

[Sarcastr0]

Nothing about the viability of renewables is outside the known rules of physics.

I literally said that solar power would be just fine when we get to using solar power satellites
You are so limited to whatever specific tricks you can imagine. That might be good engineering; it is not good science. [I recognize the line can be fuzzy]

[Life of Brian]

Dude, you specifically pooh-poohed thinking that "current engineering limits are rules of physics." I addressed that. You're now moving the goalposts.

And yes, for reasons already discussed ad nauseam here, wind is tapped out under basic laws of physics understandable by all but the perpetual sophists. So is on-the-surface solar. Brett raises the notion of a big Rube Goldberg contraption to float between the sun and the earth and somehow deliver sunlight to the surface more efficiently than the sun does without hurting inhabitants more than the sun does; that feels more like a space elevator sort of problem than pure physics, but we'll see how that plays out if/when anyone actually tries to roll it out in a non-trivial way.

[Sarcastr0]

ducksalad put my thesis quite well:

"while I agree that you can't economically build enough energy storage to avoid a brownout, you seem to be saying that's it's not even theoretically possible....
If you're willing to spend the money and resources you can build enough storage to reduce the probability arbitrarily close to zero."

You seem to have lost the bubble on your thesis here. Other than failed pedantry, what is your plan? Are you adopting Brett's strawman of 'if you build a system that only relies on wind power and uses today's energy storage tech, it's bad?'

[Life of Brian]

If you're willing to spend the money and resources you can build enough storage to reduce the probability arbitrarily close to zero.

And if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. It doesn't matter how much willingness you have to spend money when there aren't even enough known resources to build everyone batteries for electric vehicles, much less for baseload storage. Again, you're just shifting from one set of finite resources to another.

Other than failed pedantry, what is your plan?

Ah, the reflexive liberal refuge: "if you say my plan won't work, what's YOUR plan?"

Whether or not I have what you consider a "plan" has no bearing on whether your plan is a pipe dream. But of all the realistic options I'm aware of, nuclear is the only one that is pragmatically perpetual.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't even attacked my plan, LoB. You didn't even seem to bother with identifying my thesis, you just faffed about with what's a law of physics and what's not.
And were wrong about it.

You still don't seem to know what my plan is. Or at least don't seem willing to restate it or attack it in specific terms.

Just tiresome pedantry. Pedantry which, again, rests on a misunderstanding of science and what's a rule and what's not.

[Life of Brian]

Yet again, 1) you advanced a proposition; 2) I addressed it; 3) you bitched I didn't address something else but of course don't say what that something else is.

However you get your kicks, I guess.

[Sarcastr0]

You haven't refuted, you've asserted.

And as usual for your pedantry you chose a collateral issue that was not material to my thesis, which I've now reposted a couple of times.

I suppose this return to your tedious tactics is better than your recent pastime in the vanguard of bloodthirsty cheerleader for ICE shooting disobedient citizens.

[Life of Brian]

And now it's time to throw a whole different color of confetti in the air to try to distract from the corner you painted yourself into.

You really need a new playbook.

[ducksalad]

Sarc, LoB is right that there are solid physics reasons why the technology for wind energy itself isn't going to get fundamentally better. At the margins yeah, and equipment costs can go down due to better manufacturing, and there's still plenty of room to build more of it. But there's a maximum amount of harvestable energy in a given wind pattern and a well-designed wind farm is approaching that limit.

Where Brett and LoB still don't get - after several rounds of this discussion - is that wind can still be good investment anytime fuel costs are a significant part of your main (base) power source. Which of course applies to natural gas and coal. We keep hearing about reliability but that objection disappears completely and absolutely if you have sufficient fossil fuel capacity to cover max load, which you'd have to have anyway if you didn't use wind.

They talk about energy storage, but again are missing the main point. The stored energy is the natural gas and the coal. When there is no wind, you burn that stored energy and pay whoever extracted it. When there is wind, you don't burn it and you don't pay. Nevermind sustainability, that's not the point. The point is that coal and natural gas have ongoing fuel costs and wind doesn't.

After allowing that, their next level of objection is about fixed costs and fossil fuel plants sitting idle. Yes. What they don't get is that people who aren't even a little bit confused about stuff like amortized costs ran those numbers and decided it was worth it.

Then they'll say that government subsidies are in that calculation, which in the US is true. However, it's not some law of physics that the fixed costs outweigh the fuel costs in the absence of subsidies. It's dependent on fuel costs, which vary with time and place. Even places where the government itself is producing the energy sometimes decide to include wind.

I will concede one thing to Brett. His dream grid is nuclear with fuel regeneration supplemented by stuff like hydroelectric. In that case, you don't save a lot of money by cutting production so the economic case for wind evaporates. It's my dream grid also.

But for the actual fuel mix and actual government that we have, wind can be cost effective. One has to run the numbers and not make generalist arguments about wind not being reliable. It's intermittency can be calculated and accounted for.

Perhaps some of the bias is due to them first hearing about wind energy when it was lefty environmentalists versus righty oilmen. Currently the core of the anti-wind movement in the US is environmentalists and the people putting up wind farms are capitalists concerned with the bottom line.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Where Brett and LoB still don't get - after several rounds of this discussion - is that wind can still be good investment anytime fuel costs are a significant part of your main (base) power source."

No, I totally get that. I'm just saying that it's a product of bad accounting. That if you want to do a genuine A-B comparison between power sources, you need to price out what's necessary for them to actually be comparable. Not simply ignore that one of them is there when you want it, and the other is there when it feels like it.

You look at Texas, they set up a pseudo-market in power that required the grid to buy whatever was cheapest at any given instant without regard to whether you could count on it still being there five minutes later.

The result was that every time the Sun came out from behind a cloud solar would displace baseline plants, and any money you spent on reliability just meant that the people who didn't spend on reliability would eat your lunch.

The people who built solar farms under those rules weren't being economically irrational, the system ITSELF was economically irrational.

We have an economically irrational market in energy across most of the West, and it's hurting us badly.

[Sarcastr0]

there's a maximum amount of harvestable energy in a given wind pattern and a well-designed wind farm is approaching that limit

I don't think that's the right question to ask, though. The limiting factor of wind, unlike solar, is not efficiency of harvest. It's robustness of the system at large. As you noted mixing sources is one way to do that. Energy transmission helps a lot as well. And Energy storage is another front.

[Life of Brian]

The point is that coal and natural gas have ongoing fuel costs and wind doesn't.

If your point is we can reduce overall fuel consumption by opportunistically swapping in wind when it's available, that's mathematically correct as far as it goes. But even without factoring in the cost of the idling baseline plants the wind is temporarily supplementing, the actual levelized cost of production (even using the rosy and generally untested estimates for lifespan of wind turbines) isn't much if any lower. You're just substituting other non-free, non-infinite resources.

But in any event, my comments were addressing Hobie's original proposition that spun off this thread: "But in less than twenty years, China will no longer need any oil and gas because of [renewables]." That's replacement, not supplementation.

[Absaroka]

"No, I totally get that. I'm just saying that it's a product of bad accounting. That if you want to do a genuine A-B comparison between power sources, you need to price out what's necessary for them to actually be comparable. Not simply ignore that one of them is there when you want it, and the other is there when it feels like it."

I'm sure there are places where wind or solar is pushed for ideological reasons, but that doesn't mean there aren't utilities who use them for purely economic reasons. I freely admit I haven't done a deep dive, but we have a family friend who works for our utility in the giant Bond villain headquarters room where they dispatch the various sources of power, and he seems happy to have wind in the mix. When the wind blows, they use wind, when it doesn't they use fossil or hydro. Sure, switching around is more work for him, but when the wind is blowing they seem happy enough to not pay for fossil, or keep water behind the dam for a not-rainy day.

'it never makes sense' seems as unlikely as 'it always makes sense'.

[ducksalad]

OK, I grant this is more solid non-strawman reasoning.

If the fossil fuel operators and wind/solar operators are different players, I agree that the current system disadvantages the fossil fuel operators by making their revenue per dollar invested poorer. And yeah, that will affect decisions to invest in new or upgraded fossil fuel plants. No disagreement there.

There are some mitigating effects.

First, if fewer fossil fuel plants are competing they can charge more during low-wind/high-demand periods.

Second, it could be the same company owning wind and fossil and saving their own fuel costs.

But it appears your real concern is that the rules are leading to unwise trade-offs between reliability and costs. I'd say three things:

(a) It's a heavily regulated industry and it's not like there aren't lots of eyes on the issue.
(b) In the last 20 years I've had exactly one half-day outage that could even plausibly be attributed to grid capacity. Could it get worse? Yeah, but not suddenly. It'll go to once every ten years, once every five years, etc. A fossil fuel plant can go up in two or three years.
(c) Right now unreliability due to downed lines and failed substations is an order of magnitude more important than grid capacity. People who really need power already have backup generators. So even if the grid becomes less reliable, it just means more average days per year that hospitals and data centers run their generators. Right now it's probably something like twice a year due to storms and once in twenty years for capacity. (Wild ass guess but you get the point.) Capacity outages could go up quite a bit before they meaningfully change overall reliability.

[Absaroka]

"If you're willing to spend the money and resources you can build enough storage to reduce the probability arbitrarily close to zero."

I dunno about grid scale economies of scale, but FWIW over this winter I'm putting together a solar system for the cabin. The desired end is to keep the most efficient 7 cu ft (so really small) fridge I can find powered on with, say, no more than one day a month of downtime (as in, we can go to town for ice). The budget is $200 for the fridge, $800 for the battery, $400 for the inverter, $400 for the controller (both the controller and inverter are high end, for efficiency reasons), $1800 for panels, and a few hundred in wire, mounts, breakers and what have you.

This is ... a lot less usage than most American households, to put it mildly. I don't think folks are ready to scale that up at the present economics.

Again, I'm not suggesting a utility company can't do storage cheaper at scale, but I bet it will be a while before you don't have a fossil fuel or nuclear plant as backup. Even most off grid people have a gas or diesel generator, because that is by far the cheapest way to reduce the tail risk.

[Life of Brian]

I don't think folks are ready to scale that up at the present economics.

This, and as I just mentioned above, I don't think there are enough known reserves of raw materials to build the storage capacity if everyone were somehow willing to belly up and pay through the nose.

Curious question: how much capacity does that $800 buy you, and at what projected lifespan? I'd have to think there's some upward pressure on that market even at the current level of EV adoption.

[Sarcastr0]

I would say Absroka is making a great case for solar subsidies, in the interests of reducing solar grid tech to a more marketable state.

If a subsidy can get a market going, even a small one, it's kickstarted an innovation engine well outside what direct development grants could do.
Absent some other distortion in the market (see: commercial space and the DoD) it's a good investment, if a market is where you want to go.

[Life of Brian]

Surely outside the realm of governmental think tanks you need more than "this cool tech is expensive" to make a great case for a subsidy.

[Sarcastr0]

"if a market is where you want to go."

Pedants need to have good attention to detail. Or else they're just shitposters with a gimmick.

[Life of Brian]

"I would say Absroka [sic] is making a great case for solar subsidies" sure did come across like a market was where you wanted to go!

[hobie]

Brian, let's just agree to disagree that China is betting everything that the future is electric. And we're all in on coal an LNG. Guess we'll see who is correct, won't we?

[Absaroka]

"case for solar subsidies"

I just googled 'US average household kwh' and got 29 kwh/day. My battery works out to $157/kwh, so you're talking $4553 to store a single day of typical use. And that's 600 pounds of battery in a waist high pile a couple feet square.

If you are worst casing, say, 10 days of use, it's the price of a car and a small room, and you better check the joist sizing.

Lotsa cool options today, *if* you use the fossil fueled grid as the backup of last resort. But without that "you can build enough storage to reduce the probability arbitrarily close to zero" with 100% renewables seems like a stretch today.

[Life of Brian]

Brian, let's just agree to disagree that China is betting everything that the future is electric.

Let's indeed. From a 10-second search: https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/

The country began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity and resumed 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, the highest level of construction in the past 10 years, according to the two thinktanks.

The accelerated buildout, fuelled by investment from the coal-mining sector, “raises critical concerns” about China’s ability to transition away from the fossil fuel, the report warns.

They've built a good bit of wind and solar, but they're clearly not "betting everything" on it, or anywhere close.

[Sarcastr0]

I'm not doing solar or wind or anything special myself, but I believe it's just the grid, not the fossil fueled grid. It's agnostic as to the generation type.

Cars are the ones locked into hydrocarbons.

I'm all for microgrids for efficiency, fit-for-use, resilience, etc. They're a sneaky way to get pretty big gains in your energy management strategy.

[Krayt]

Renewables are irrelevant per se, and always have been since the 1970s shortage scares.

It is unfortunately used as a synonym for green energy, i.e. not polluting. These are separate issues and separate concerns.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — For more than two decades China has been charging forward on renewables. Doing far more than has even been attempted in the U.S. I became aware of this after noticing how much time an in-law of mine—then a managing director of one of the world's largest environmental consultancies—was spending in China. So I asked her about it, and got a forthright overview. The crap you and others have been spewing about China undermining climate-minded energy policy has been as false as it has been destructive.

[jay.tee]

That isn’t true Lathrop, not even close.

https://www.iea.org/countries/China/energy-mix

As of 2023, China relies on coal and oil for 79.2% of its energy supply. That’s a huge increase since 2000.

It’s the exact opposite of what you and your anecdote claim.

[Sarcastr0]

Specificity of numbers about China is a rarity. That decimal point got me wondering.
I could not verify 79.2% in 2023. Closest source i found was about 60%.

Could still be legit; I'm not doing much more than Googling.

[Kenneth Almquist]

78.0% in 2000, 87.3% in 2010, and 79.2% in 2023.

[Dr. Ed 2]

It’s not just a shortage of fertile women, but the fertile women don’t want to have children.

[jb]

They should probably start encouraging large-scale immigration.

[jay.tee]

Yup, though I don’t think the Chinese are terribly open to foreigners.

But what I assume is your underlying point does hold: we need to encourage large-scale immigration to avert an impending population and fiscal crisis.

[Brett Bellmore]

No, we don't, because people aren't fungible.

The rapidly declining number of places that are still reproducing above replacement, and thus can serve as a source for those immigrants, are all without exception places that are a total mess.

Fertility rate vs. GDP per capita, 2023

Import those people, you import the mess, too.

[Mr. Bumble]

Numbers aren't everything.
In 1941 with a population of around 150 million we fielded and military of 16 million and fought and won a two front war.

[jb]

Curious how you think this sentiment is different than at basically any point in US history.

[Frank Drackman]

Oil is "renewable" unless you're some kind of Hayseed Creationist who believes it was all created on the 4th day (or whatever day J-hey created Petroleum) 6,000 years ago.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, oil and gas are "renewable" if you don't mind waiting around a few million years for a worthwhile amount to build up again. Coal, no, that was a one time event, no new coal is being produced anymore.

[Frank Drackman]

A "One Time Event"??
so you ARE a "Creationist"!
Me too, welcome to the club!!!

Frank

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I'm a creationist: God created the universe about 13.8 billion years ago, with the physics designed to eventually produce man in his image: A thinking being, not the whole bipedal thing. I don't think he was sweating the little details like how many fingers.

Coal was a one time event, produced under geological conditions which are highly unlikely to reoccur, in part because the creation of coal sucked a huge amount of carbon out of the biosphere and sequestered it, so it's not available to make coal again. Coal formation isn't the only thing that's been removing carbon from the biosphere, either.

There just isn't enough carbon left in the biosphere to repeat coal formation again.

[hobie]

Coal and oil all occurred at one time and for one reason. Plants evolved into wood making using lignin. No microbes or fungi existed then to digest this new type of biomass. So forest floors around the world just piled up more and more tree/plant mass for millions of years, until nature figured out a way to process it.

So, Frankie, there will be no more new coal and gas. Ever. Period.

[Brett Bellmore]

That theory of why it happened has fallen into dispute.

Delayed fungal evolution did not cause the Paleozoic peak in coal production

I believe it was more likely a combination of climate change and the reduced availability of carbon in the biosphere drastically reducing the productivity of C-3 photosynthesis. C-3 plants have been in a state of CO2 starvation since all that carbon got sequestered. At the start of the Permian CO2 levels were at 1500 PPM, by the end closer to 150 PPM, a range at which C-3 plants can barely survive.

[Krayt]

Creationists used to claim species couldn't go extinct because God would not allow it.

Meanwhile, humanity is on the cusp of becoming a lesser god, capable of resurrecting dead species, and changing them at will.

Granted, it is not creation of life, much less ex nihilo, but baby steps.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Bellmore — Bet you are wrong about new coal. I will give odds, and then we can wait to see who pays off.

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd love to have that much time available. Between normal actuarial expectations, and the fact that I went through chemotherapy, (Which results in a reduced life expectancy.) I'm not really expecting to be around a decade from now, let alone when the coal seams might plausibly reappear.

[Frank Drackman]

I want to see the "Renewable"(for the sake of Argument I'll agree that Jet Fuel isn't "Renewable)
that will fly a 600,000 lb Airbus A380 8,000 miles.
Takes about 60,000 gallons of Jet Fuel, which works out to about
.13 miles per gallon, that's "Point 1-3" or about a gallon every 700 feet.

Frank "OK, first we need a really really really big Rubber Band"

[Kazinski]

Truth is China is adding coal plants at a higher rate than they are adding renewables.

"A “resurgence” in construction of new coal-fired power plants in China is “undermining the country’s clean-energy progress”, says a new joint report by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air (CREA) and Global Energy Monitor (GEM).

The country began building 94.5 gigawatts (GW) of new coal-power capacity and resumed 3.3GW of suspended projects in 2024, the highest level of construction in the past 10 years, according to the two thinktanks. "

https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-construction-of-new-coal-power-plants-reached-10-year-high-in-2024/

Worldwide GW demand is rising faster than renewable GW comes online, and that demand is being met by even more conventional capacity being brought online.

And the biggest driver of demand is rising third world standards of living.

[Martinned]

Senior Regime Figure makes a strategic withdrawal:

Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino will imminently leave Minnesota along with some of his agents, according to administration officials familiar with the matter.

https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2026/01/littlest-napoleon-flees-the-jurisdiction

[Kazinski]

He is being replaced by a former Obama apparatchik, Tom Hohman.

https://x.com/TimesNow/status/2013799962341978209

It does seem like there is somewhat of a power struggle, Bovino was Christies guy and CBP isn't charged with immigration enforcement, but border protection, hopefully Holman will be both more effective, and more professional.

[SRG2]

He should publish a price list so the protestors know what they can afford to get away with

[Sarcastr0]

former Obama apparatchik

Haha, sanewashing Trump's quieter, calmer, deportation hawk as Obama's fault.

Pretending Obama is some kind of taint says a shitload about the Manichean political view you've developed.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Martinned — "Oh, for Pete's sake! For Pete's sake, he's fleeing the interview. He's fleeing the interview!"

[Frank Drackman]

Oh sure, now everyone's doing "Fargo" References after I started it, but I'll play
"Nurse Pretti should have opted for the Tru-Coat"
"Nurse Pretti died?? do you know who has his Gopher tickets??"
"Way to "Handle it" Pretti!"

[Dr. Ed 2]

Governor Tampon would prefer not to die in the federal penitentiary.

He’s suddenly cooperating, reports are that his state police are making arrests.

[Frank Drackman]

Wonder how many hours Nurse Pretti spent treating the homeless, undocumented, mentally ill? Hope his Nursing skills were better than his judgement.

[Malika la Maize]

Also disaffected liberal approved, no doubt.

[Malika la Maize]

Costco is facing a class-action lawsuit accusing the warehouse retailer of falsely advertising that its Kirkland Signature Seasoned Rotisserie Chicken contains no preservatives, according to court documents.  

The lawsuit, filed Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, alleges that Costco’s in-store signage and website "create an overall net impression that the Rotisserie Chicken does not contain added preservatives." But the suit further claims those representations are false, arguing that "the Rotisserie Chicken is made with two added preservatives—sodium phosphate and carrageenan."

"The presence of sodium phosphate and carrageenan, added preservatives which function as such in the Rotisserie Chicken, contradict the overall net impression that Costco’s ‘No Preservatives’ representations and advertisingcreate," the lawsuit, filed on behalf of Anatasia Chernov and Bianca Johnston, states.  

https://www.foxbusiness.com/lifestyle/costcos-popular-bargain-meal-center-new-lawsuit.amp

[hobie]

sodium phosphate and carrageenan are both natural products from natural sources. They may not occur naturally in a chicken, but neither does the olive etc. used to cook them. Yet we don't squirm about olive oil being on a chicken.

[Brett Bellmore]

Nor, seriously, would it ever occur to me to describe either of them as "preservatives", though I guess sodium phosphate has a little effect of that nature.

They both function to improve the texture of food, by retaining moisture and gelling it.

You'd be more accurate describing the salt as a preservative!

And, "overall net impression"? That's just a way of saying, "It doesn't actually say that."

It's lawsuits like this one that are the reason modern audiences start nodding agreement when Dick the Butcher delivers his famous line.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and McRibs have no rib meat.
Why aren't these actions summarily dismissed and the lawyers sanctioned.

[Brett Bellmore]

Law is a cartel run by lawyers, and the rules favor lawyers making money. Once you realize that everything falls into place.

[Sarcastr0]

BrettLaw or bust!

[Mr. Bumble]

Douche speaks (and says nothing).

[Bob from Ohio]

"BrettLaw "

I know its an involuntary reflex with you but "Law is a cartel run by lawyers, and the rules favor lawyers making money" is not unique to Brett, both are common sentiments.

The first part is 100% true.

[Absaroka]

I dunno. I'm not into lawyer bashing - I need a will etc like anyone else - but OTOH most professions, from plumbers to doctors to lawyers to carpenters to farmers have a tendency to arrange things to their benefit when they get the chance. I don't think every class action lawsuit is done for purely altruistic reasons, for example, and I doubt tort lawyers are going to advocate for policies that are good for society but bad for their bottom line. It's almost like ... lawyers are people.

[Sarcastr0]

Yeah, sure. No one is saying all lawyers are good.

But Brett's indicting our justice system. And he thinks everyone should be able to see it like he does.

That's not the moderate position.

[Absaroka]

"But Brett's indicting our justice system"

What I see from Brett is a suggestion that this lawsuit - that sodium phosphate and carrageenan are best characterized as preservatives - seems pretty dubious. That was my reaction as well.

[Sarcastr0]

"the rules favor lawyers making money. Once you realize that everything falls into place."

Everything. That's a sweeping statement, well beyond the silly Costco lawsuit.

Though also the confirmation bias of bad lawsuits versus more normal ones.

[Malika la Maize]

Don’t measure it by the Almighty but by the alternative.

[Frank Drackman]

Wait until you find out Mountain Oysters aren't Oysters.
Never mind, you'll probably like them even better.

[Life of Brian]

I'm really, really sorry I googled that.

[jay.tee]

Not exactly the same, but close enough:

https://youtu.be/QNUbwijCKfw

[Martinned]

We now know how the current US Regime wants to tell the story of the US war effort in World War II, or at least the part of the story that appears at the military cemetary at Margraten:

Ten new information panels have been unveiled for the American war cemetery in Margraten, including one focusing on the African-American soldiers who dug the original graves.

The other nine panels will be added to a rotating display featuring the stories of individual service members. They include two Black soldiers, one Native American and a woman who served as a nurse.
(...)
In November a row erupted over the removal of a previous panel describing how Black American soldiers faced discrimination in the segregated US army even as they fought to liberate Europe.

Relatives of soldiers buried at Margraten said the removal of the panels was “dishonouring” their memory and accused the Trump administration of trying to erase them from history.
(...)
The new panel details the units that created the first, temporary cemetery at Margraten, including the 611th Graves Registration Company and two Quartermaster Service Company units – segregated units that dug the graves – but without quotes or testimony from the service members themselves, or any mention of segregation.

Kees Ribbens, senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute for War, Holocaust, and Genocide Studies (NIOD), called it “unsettling and disappointing”. He told ANP: “The text of the new panel makes no mention whatsoever of segregation in the US Army. In that sense the image has been sanitised or whitewashed.”

Stichting Black Liberators, a Dutch foundation that commemorates the Black American soldiers who served in the Netherlands, said the panel was “a step in the right direction” but it would continue to work to highlight “a painful aspect of history for both the veterans themselves and their relatives who should never be forgotten.”

https://www.dutchnews.nl/2026/01/new-margraten-cemetery-panels-aim-to-quell-black-liberators-row/

[hobie]

You haven't noticed us erasing our blacks and slavery, Martin? It's been going on for over a year now. Go to Arlington, make a left at the Donald & Melania Trump Memorial Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, and you can see it all for yourself.

[Martinned]

It seemed useful to make sure that others noticed it too.

Go to Arlington

LOL, as if the US Regime would let me into the country, given how often I criticise Trump on the internet.

[Mr. Bumble]

Self-important Eurotrash.

[Martinned]

On the contrary. I am nothing special. There is absolutely no reason why the US Regime shouldn't let me into the country. But they hate free speech so much that they might do it anyway.

[Frank Drackman]

Except for the last sentence that's the only correct statement you've ever submitted here.
OK, maybe the 3rd sentence is questionable, but we let John Demjanjuk in, so who knows?

[hobie]

When we run out of brownies we'll need people to practice on...apart from the Jews. I see you getting in on a work visa.

[Martinned]

Never in my life have I been interested in a US work visa of some sort. Life is too short for US-amounts of bureaucracy and paperwork.

[John F. Carr]

Free speech aside, don't you think your views on antitrust enforcement would get you in trouble with Trump?

[Martinned]

Trump's views on antitrust are a bit inconsistent, depending on whether the companies in question are donors or not. But my views on digital regulation might be a problem. But so far I'm not on the record as having worked on that (except in my previous job as an advisor of US big tech companies), so for now I think I'm safe.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I am nothing special."

After years and years of vapid comments, an accurate one.

[Frank Drackman]

It's more those 187 outstanding warrants for Buggery.

[Kazinski]

I doubt anyone in the Administration even knows who you are or cares.

Its not like you are someone important enough to ban like Eva Vlaardingerbroek, who has been banned from travel to the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/15/dutch-far-right-influencer-eva-vlaardingerbroek-banned

[Bob from Ohio]

You complained when they removed the panel, now a new one honoring black soldiers is put up and you complain again.

You just like to complain.

[Malika la Maize]

The hearing on Alabama center Charles Bediako's request for a preliminary injunction has been delayed because of weather issues, according to a court filing, resulting in his temporary restraining order (TRO) being extended another 10 days.

Bediako was granted a 10-day temporary restraining order last week that allowed him to play immediately for Alabama and that barred the NCAA from punishing the university in any way, with a full hearing scheduled for Tuesday. But the parties held a virtual status conference Monday because Taylor Askew, one of the NCAA's attorneys, was unable to attend Tuesday's hearing because of weather issues.

Judge James H. Roberts extended the temporary restraining order for 10 days after the NCAA agreed "that there exists good cause" to extend it. The initial temporary restraining order, which was granted Wednesday, was expected to remain in effect for 10 days or until a hearing could take place.

https://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/47737963/hearing-alabama-charles-bediako-postponed-tro-extended

[Martinned]

Following the recent Canada-China deal, and the near-ratification of the EU-Mercosur (South America) deal, today we have the conclusion of an EU-India trade agreement. Everyone is looking for insurance against Trump-crazy.

https://commission.europa.eu/topics/trade/eu-india-trade-agreement_en

[Frank Drackman]

Just go ahead and become the 20th Province of Iraq already.

[hobie]

Users of TikTok have confirmed that mentioning 'epstein' - even in direct messages - prompts warnings and error messages.

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/27/tiktok-us-joint-venture-censorship-glitches-newsom-epstein-ice-censorship.html

[Kazinski]

Funny you would think X would be first with a ban if it were at Trump's behest.

But there is no ban at X.

Or CBS, while the story is winding down, they published this last week about upcoming house hearings on Epstein.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/epstein-wexner-indyke-kahn-testify-house-oversight-committee/

A lot of people didn't get the memo. It might just be TikTok thinks its a buzz kill that distracts from the latest dance craze.

[Mr. Bumble]

Will Amazon soon be offering the Washington Post for sale on its site?

[Frank Drackman]

During my 3 years training in DC I bought the Post (or as the Late/Great G. Gordon Liddy referred to it, the Washington (BLEEP))
Every morning. Left too early for a subscription to be worthwhile, I'd stop at a Convenience Store on Rockville Pike or Georgia Avenue, get a large Black Coffee, a Pack of Marlboros if I was low (I usually was) and a Post.
1990's, Internet was slow and wouldn't work in the OR, Newspaper was the only way to keep informed (OK, mostly got it for the Comics, Crossword, "Jumble" (Quick, what word does "Kmrceuhtofre" Spell??) and they had a great Sports, Metro Section and Entertainment.
Didn't really pay much attention to the Politics then, wasn't a Clinton fan, but not like Perot had a real chance.
Got a copy a few years ago, maybe 1/2 the size, what a waste.

Frank

[Martinned]

For free with a Prime membership

[Frank Drackman]

About what it's worth.

[John F. Carr]

Amazon bundles a Washington Post subscription with Prime and pays the Post a random amount of money per Prime member. A little if Amazon is supposed to be the beneficiary and a lot if the Post is supposed to be the beneficiary. This is how private equity extracts value from acquisitions, by having subsidiaries make one-sided deals with other subsidiaries.

[Martinned]

I'm not sure how the scenario you set out results in a value extraction, except in the obvious sense that Amazon has outside shareholders too, while Bezos owns the WaPo on his own.

Prime is a weird animal anyway. The theory of it is that Prime members spend more on Amazon Marketplace, but I'm not sure in which direction the causation runs. But Amazon thinks it's worthwhile to incentivise Prime Membership by bundling it with TV shows and all sorts of other fun. A WaPo subscription could be used as a similar sort of driver for Prime membership sales.

[Mr. Bumble]

...and in crazy judges getting bitch slapped news:
"The Trump administration has appealed the preliminary injunction entered by Judge Kate Menendez in Tincher v. Noem to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Yesterday the Eighth Circuit granted the administration’s motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending appeal."
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/01/menendez-miasma-clearing.php
Ruling is embedded in linked story.

[hobie]

Staying an injunction is indeed an aggressive and unusual judicial act.

[Mr. Bumble]

Public Service Announcement:
If you are dumb enough to be protesting the enforcement of immigration law don't be this dumb.
Serious injury may result!
https://rumble.com/v74wfjo-anti-ice-agitator-picks-up-flashbang-instantly-regrets-it.html

[Frank Drackman]

I know I'm casting Pearls before Swine (one of the few great Comics left, ht S. Pastis)
Which is banned in most of the Moose-lum world because one of it's main characters is a Pig, THAT's who the Moose-lums are, besides chopping off heads, they care about stupid cartoon characters.
But OK Piggies, come and get it,
ICE, CBP, are just enforcing the Immigration Laws passed by Congress, Signed by a POTUS, and enforced (however Shittily) by every recent POTUS including Saint Jimmuh Cartuh, William Juffuhson, Barry Hussein, and Parkinsonian Joe,
But I am upset about Nurse Pretti's demise.
Upset that they didn't blow his ass away the minute he started obstructing, no way he should have been allowed to get that close and get a shot off.
ICE Agents have fambilies too.

OK, Piggies, eat well, Easter's not too far off, we want you
to be good and fat for your big day!

Frank

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Pearls before Swine is a great comic.

[Martinned]

Interesting news on the Tunney Act and/or the US Regime's ability to offer merger clearances to the highest bidder:

Twelve US states and the District of Columbia have asked the court reviewing the Department of Justice's settlement with Hewlett-Packard and Juniper for a hold separate order, which would require the companies to cease any further integration efforts until the court completes its review. The court denied the states’ motion orally on Jan. 8, and said Monday it denied the motion because the relief would extend well beyond the relevant market to encompass all of HPE and Juniper’s operations. And second, because the states did not move for relief until several months after the court had authorized the companies to begin integrating their operations, and the alleged irreparable injuries to competition “have almost certainly already occurred, and the states didn't identify any specific, further harm that is likely to occur before this court is able to issue any Tunney Act decision.”

[hobie]

German media likens US border patrol official’s coat to ‘Nazi look’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/23/gregory-bovino-coat-german-media

You know, you guys are really shooting yourselves in the foot with the masks, and brown shirts and now Nazi-style trench coats worn by the high command.

[Mr. Bumble]

When everything is Nazi, nothing is Nazi.
Double breasted uniforms have been a military style for ages.

[Martinned]

Not everything is Nazi, just everything you do or say all day. I can see how that might be confusing.

[Mr. Bumble]

"Double breasted uniforms have been a military style for ages."
True or false?

[Life of Brian]

And, crickets. Hobie too!

Fear not, though, no doubt they'll be back soon enough for the next round of Godwin-meets-dog-whistle.

[Life of Brian]

Sorry, Charlie -- not even Politico is going with you on this one.

But hey -- did'ja know Nazis wore socks too? Frigid times ahead for the fawning PC crowd....

[Sarcastr0]

The Nazis were all about aesthetics. Hollywood picked that up, so that long coat is now in the zeitgeist as a signal for authoritarian bad guy [see: Neil Patrick Harris in Starship Troopers]

So when someone decides they want to adopt that look, it's sending quite a message.

But then someone called me 'rebel scum' yesterday so I think MAGA includes some people with a very different take on media than the usual.

[Mr. Bumble]

"A trench coat is a variety of coat made of waterproof heavy-duty fabric.[1] Originally developed for British Army officers before the First World War, they became popular while used in the trenches, hence the name."
British Army officers were Nazis before there were Nazis?

[loki13]

We are talking about people who took a long time to realize that Homelander was the bad guy.

And many of them still haven't figured it out. I mean, they probably still haven't figured out the Starship Troopers was a satire.

[Michael P]

I mean, they probably still haven't figured out the Starship Troopers was a satire.

Count me as in RAH's camp on that.

But sure, tell on yourself for never having read the book.

[Martinned]

I don't think you should brag about having read Heinlein. But you do you.

[Sarcastr0]

Starship Troopers is a favorite book of mine. Might be my favorite sci-fi book. But it's because Heinlein is a better author than he was a person.

He thought he was writing a pro-military semi-fascistic rah-rah tale, but in the end he wrote a scathing indictment of war from an unreliable narrator.

Rico starts out as a complex and fully live youth, and ends as a machine so optimized for killing he's got no access to is own fear.

I always get the shakes before a drop. I’ve had the injections, of course, and hypnotic preparation, and it stands to reason that I can’t really be afraid. The ship’s psychiatrist has checked my brain waves and asked me silly questions while I was asleep and he tells me that it isn’t fear, it isn’t anything important—it’s just like the trembling of an eager race horse in the starting gate.

I couldn’t say about that; I’ve never been a race horse. But the fact is: I’m scared silly, every time.

Once his face was covered up, the shakes really hit me. My platoon sergeant put his arm around my armored shoulders.
"Just like a drill, Son."
"I know it, Father."
I stopped shaking at once.

"It’s the waiting, that’s all."
"I know. Four minutes. Shall we get buttoned up, sir?"
"Right away, Father." I gave him a quick hug, let the Navy drop crew seal us in.

The shakes didn’t start up again.

Death of the author, everyone can read it as they want. But to me, since I first read it in middle school, it's always been anti-war.

And I also enjoy the sub-genre of sci-fi books written specifically in dialogue with Starship Troopers. Often by veterans. E.g.:
-Forever War
-Old Man's War
-Poor Man's Fight
-Armor

[Bunny495]

"Rico starts out as a complex and fully live youth"

With a 39% in math what did you expect?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Starship Troopers was a satire"

Intended as a satire, totally failed. Most viewers liked the federation.

Naked girls, cool unis.

[SRG2]

It's not a trench-coat. It's closer to a great-coat. One notable distinction is that the former always has a belt, the latter, seldom. Also a trench coat has a distinctive shoulder flap on the right shoulder. This doesn't. On the other hand this isn't a traditional great-coat either - wrong material, and the collar isn't big enough.

It looks like a hybrid of a number of styles so is probably either a specific uniform design, or some pseudo military coat permitting epaulettes.

[Bob from Ohio]

Its also too long to be a trench coat. Too confining for trench use.

Looks more like a US WW2 office overcoat. Olive drab is a US army color.

[Paladin_44]

Looks more like my naval officer's bridge coat - calf-length, brass buttons. Just missing the hookups for the shoulder boards. These were the long-form version of the enlisted pea coat.

[SRG2]

It may not be too long - it just may be too long for him. As men with skinny necks think a bigger collar will give the impression of a bigger neck (when it's quite the opposite) so too a man sensitive about his height might wear an overly long coat.

[Bunny495]

Back in the day I was in a work/study program as a grad student as a programmer at the help desk at the computer center. Driving to work one morning I was dressed in the mandatory uniform for computer programmers, flip flops, blue jeans, and a T-shirt. Listening to the radio playing Dire Straits "Money for Nothing" (the original version with the words "the little faggot has his own jet airplane, the little faggot is a millionaire' which got it banned on some radio stations) I was somewhat shocked to hear the DJ talking about some made up holiday to support gays when he said anyone wearing blue jeans today is supporting gays. I still follow Godwins' law that the first person that says Nazi loses.

[SRG2]

Shouldn't have been banned - Dire Straits were quoting the idiot salesman not making their own statement.

[loki13]

By the way, for those of you who continue to believe that this is actually about "immigration enforcement" and not just raw unchecked violence and power, I will remind you that this happened in Minnesota, and is now moving to Maine.

Both of those states voted against Trump. Neither of those states is close to the southern border (duh). Neither of those states has a significant illegal immigration problem (duh).

Believe you eyes, not their lies.

[Mr. Bumble]

"...raw unchecked violence and power, ..."
Seems Minnesota and Minneapolis have been the home to this since Floyd George.

[Michael P]

Justine Damond was unavailable for comment.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The state of Maine has 3,478 miles of a border with the Atlantic Ocean, and 611 miles of a border with Canada. That adds up to(;4,089 miles.

The Texas Mexico border is only 1254 miles long, or slightly more than twice the land border. And made has fog.

[SRG2]

The state of Maine has 3,478 miles of a border with the Atlantic Ocean

depending on the resolution, as Mandelbrot would no doubt have noted.

[Bunny495]

The biggest problem with libtard like you is cherry picking. It is happening in Texas which not only voted for Trump but ICE has kicked out about ten times as many illegal aliens as they have kicked out in Minnesota. The difference is the state and local LEOs in Texas not only don't interfere with ICE they actively help ICE. Same goes for Florida and no one is suggesting Florida would ever vote for a pinko commie creep like Minnesota does.

[loki13]

*whoosh*

There is a difference between ICE being active and the type of surge that happened in Minnesota and is starting in Maine. You can educate yourself by looking up the number of ICE agents (not employees, but active agents in enforcement) overall, and the number deployed in Minnesota. But I think math is hard for you.

I'd explain this to you in terms you understand, but given your use of the term "libtard," I see you. So instead of engaging, I'm just going to mute you and enjoy not arguing with someone who doesn't get it and uses ... um ... "cherrypicked" sources.

To quote Depeche Mode, I will enjoy the silence.

[Bunny495]

Reading comprehension is your friend. In states where the state and local LEOs don't actively hinder ICE enforcement things go smoothy. When there is active obstruction by state and local pols it is no shock that more agents are sent. FAFO

[Life of Brian]

Welcome to the inner circle, my friend. Loki routinely huffy-mutes folks who have the temerity to talk back so as to minimize pesky distractions from his overblown soliloquies.

[Bunny495]

Good catch. I missed the implication.

[loki13]

MAGA Commenters here after watching Andor-

I don't get it. I mean, the Empire had cool uniforms. They had cool weapons. They had awesome troops wearing masks just following orders to put the beat down on some rebel scum. Why were they the bad guys?

[Michael P]

Meanwhile, in the real world, recovering lefties realize they were a hair's breadth from becoming the baddies.

My wife was the one who pointed the post out to me. “Were we this crazy?” she asked. I don’t think so. I hope not? I mean, I think we were out of touch, in a bubble, unwilling to entertain alternate points of view - but this represented the kind of thing that broke the spell. This was the “Holy shit, this isn’t kind of thing decent people do” stuff that gave us pause and pushed us away.

https://substack.com/@jadednation/note/c-203920255

[Sarcastr0]

recovering lefties

Ahh the grift that keeps on giving.

[Estragon]

The political super geniuses at the White House have really done it to themselves. One increasingly likely outcome here is a Congressional mandate of mask removal and displayed ID for these ICE agents. Anyone want to guess how many agents quit in that scenario? I’ll say 75%. At this point they are risking lifelong ostracism from a lot of people in their lives and community.

This was intended by Miller to be an erotic fascist spectacle. The Chicago apartment building raid was one of the first big attempts at this. But they hired so many drunken steroid- addicted buffoons it had the complete opposite effect: now when the public thinks of immigration, they’re going to think of a nice lady saying “I’m not mad” and getting shot in her car full of stuffies and her dog. Or a nurse somehow ending up shot in the back when there were 8 guys on top of him. Browine himself could not have fucked this up more royally.

I once again ask: how does Bovino think this ends for him? A gold watch and retirement after another few years in El Centro, followed by a quiet and anonymous post-work life back in NC?

Let this be a warning to every would-be sycophant for this Administration. Ahem Josh. Loyalty is always a one-way street with Don. Up next: Justice for Cricket.

[Estragon]

“Up next: Justice for Cricket”

One way to tell this is a likely outcome is the recycling of the Kim Jong Un “stare down” interview, which all of a sudden is reappearing today. I hope her and Cory had fun while it lasted. How does she think this ends for her? Just a quiet retirement back in Dakota?

[Bob from Ohio]

"How does she think this ends for her? Just a quiet retirement back in Dakota?"

Yes. Not every American is crazy like you.

What exactly do want to do to her and the others? You keep making this threat.

[Estragon]

She’s about to become one of the most radioactive people in American public life today, if she isn’t already. I merely wonder if people like her and Bovino and Miller have realized it yet. She’ll be living this down the rest of her days. Stared down Kim jong Un. Murdered her puppy (and winged her goat). Now, the face of lies told about people shot in the streets. It’s quite a portfolio.

[Bob from Ohio]

"most radioactive people in American public life"

She'll be forgotten 90 days after leaving office. There will be some other bogeyman that libs hate by then.

The US public has the memory of a goldfish.

[Estragon]

Sometime in the next weeks or months, I bet it will comfort her to think so.

Some things are not so easily forgotten.

[MarkJawz]

Do you think she cares what leftist fairies in San Francisco, Seattle and New Yuck think?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Some things are not so easily forgotten."

By you maybe. A large portion of the US public has no idea who she is right now, they aren't going to carry a lifelong grudge or even remember her. Most people aren't political obsessives.

[ducksalad]

Don't know what Estragon wants to do to her. Perhaps she could be treated according to the new standard, let's call it the Trump-Biden Standard, Mild Version:

- If she disappears herself from public life, is forgotten (after 90 days you said), and makes a reasonable effort to stay forgotten, no further action needs to be taken.

- If she insists on sticking her head up at all - to include not just running for or accepting public office, but being a nuisance on TV or podcasts - then there's (1) the main prosecution for abuse of office; (2) the usual backup prosecutions for documents and e-mails, mortgage fraud, meals on expense accounts, campaign finance, and tax deductions; and (3) the meta prosecutions for supposedly lying or obstructing each and every one of the main and backup prosecutions.

How's that? Or there could be a solid agreement to revert back to the old standards and generously grandfather her in.

[Estragon]

She’s going to spend the rest of her life in one way or another desperately scrambling to avoid legal, political, social, personal, spiritual, moral accountability for what she has done. To the extent that she did, she was foolish to expect to rely on any reciprocal loyalty from the people she worked for.

[Bob from Ohio]

"She’s going to spend the rest of her life in one way or another desperately scrambling to avoid legal, political, social, personal, spiritual, moral accountability for what she has done. "

Get help.

[Estragon]

Here’s another sign:

https://nypost.com/2026/01/27/us-news/noem-demanded-hours-long-meeting-with-trump-after-shes-sidelined-amid-backlash-over-ice-shooting/

“Demanded” is the key word and key focus here.

[Dr. Ed 2]

When people go to trial for the sedition and the criminal conspiracies relative to this signal stuff, neither of those people will look so innocent.

From what I have seen so far BOTH OF THEM DESERVED TO DIE AS ENEMY SUBVERSIVES.

It is the classic case of FAFO. If you taunt and threaten exhausted man with guns in a stressful situation where they’re in fear of their lives, don’t be surprised when bad things happen to you.

And I’d love to see a picture of that Delta Charlie with a bullet hole in her face. I think that would quiet a lot of things down.

Why the hell do you take a loaded handgun to a confrontation with police officers? That’s Darwin award stuff!

[Estragon]

“And I’d love to see a picture of that Delta Charlie with a bullet hole in her face.”

I bet you would.

[M L]

All I got from that is you're another open borders nut who doesn't want immigration law enforced and/or just another political junkie freak. LOL at you.

[Michael P]

Have the usual "you people need to stop arguing from anecdotes about people dying" chimed in to say that it's unreasonable to be concerned on behalf of Renee Good and Alex Pretti? (I've been busy three last few days, and have muted some of the usual suspects for that argument, so I haven't seen everything. Maybe they'll surprise us by being consistent for once.)

[Malika la Maize]

Mikie Q has muted you but asks you to comment!

What a joke.

[Martinned]

I wonder if Trumpists have always believed that people who bring fire arms to a protest deserve to get shot on sight.

Trump Defends St. Louis Couple Who Pointed Guns At Protesters

President Donald Trump during a Tuesday interview defended Mark and Patricia McCloskey, the St. Louis couple who went viral last month after pointing a semi-automatic rifle and a pistol at demonstrators marching by their house.

- “They were going to be beat up badly and the house was going to be totally ransacked or burned down like they tried to burn down churches,” Trump told conservative outlet Townhall.

- Trump called attempts to prosecute the couple “a disgrace” as “these people were standing there, never used it, and they were legal, the weapons.”

- The McCloskeys, who are both personal injury lawyers, came under the national spotlight late June when video footage emerged of the white couple brandishing their weapons at a group of protesters marching through an upscale St. Louis neighborhood to Mayor Lyda Krewson’s house to demand her resignation.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemimamcevoy/2020/07/14/trump-defends-st-louis-couple-who-pointed-guns-at-protesters/

[loki13]

Well, they brandished their weapons.

If you never show your weapon, and your weapon is taken from you, then you deserve to get shot multiple times in the back because you're a domestic terrorist.

MAGA Logic.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Do you not understand the difference between standing on the front porch of your own house on your own land and standing in the middle of a city street? Do you not understand the difference between an unlawful assembly and person‘s operating on a power of law?

Are you really that stupid?

[loki13]

One of the things I wanted to highlight is how the Supreme Court is belatedly beginning to realize ... how dangerous and stupid some of its decisions have been. With the exact same reasoning that I used to try to impress on others here. The whole, "Cool story bruh, but what happens when the other side does it to you?"

(Aside- the inevitable reply was "But they already did ... Hunter's Laptop, Hillary's Email blah blah blah)

See, the unitary executive uber alles is great in theory, but fatal in fact when the fact includes actual humans, especially Trump. You might say that it's the whole reason we eschew that concentration of power. It's why this line of questioning in the Cook oral arguments from Kavanaugh was interesting-

JUSTICE KAVANAUGH: But it would be in the view of the president, the president who might have a policy disagreement, and there's
no judicial review, and the president can just define it on his or her own, right? ... Let's talk about the real-world downstream effects of this because, if this were set as a precedent, it seems to me, just thinking big picture, what goes around comes around. All of the current president's appointees would likely be removed for cause on January 20th, 2029, if there's a Democratic President or January 20th, 2033, and then we're really at at-will removal. So what are we doing here? ... What -- what is -- you know, we started -- that's why I started with what's the purpose of the independence and the for-cause removal. If we accept all these no procedure, no judicial review, no remedy, you know, that's what's going to happen, I think, and then -- then where are we? So do you dispute that that is, you know, the -- the real-world effect? ...
Well, history is a pretty good guide. Once these tools are unleashed, they are used by both sides and usually more the second time around.

While we are rightly concerned with all the current abuses, the real hard work will be in restoring legitimacy to the institutions that Trump has systemically subverted or destroyed. I know I keep harping on this, but the DOJ spent decades building institutional legitimacy, and Trump managed to obliterate it in less than a year. The next administration will either continue and worsen the abuses by doubling down, or have to do the difficult work of rebuilding trust from scratch.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Adair v. U.S., Justice Harlan:

This question is admittedly one of importance, and has been examined with care and deliberation. And the court has reached a conclusion which, in its judgment, is consistent with both the words and spirit of the Constitution and is sustained as well by sound reason.

Don't worry, they are obviously taking due care in their opinions.

Ha ha.

Reconstruction will be hard. It will, in my view, have to entail some punitive action along with choosing better personnel loyal to the rule of law. There also has to be some realization on both sides that integrity matters.

[Brett Bellmore]

It's worth recalling that Reconstruction only came after part of the country had conquered the other part in a long and bloody war, and had them so beaten down that they didn't dare resist.

So, are you contemplating a civil war? And confident your side will win it?

[Sarcastr0]

You're intentionally misreading Joe's comment.

Don't be a lameo.

[Mr. Bumble]

Douche calls Brett a lameo. Priceless.

[Bob from Ohio]

"You're intentionally misreading Joe's comment."

Reconstruction has a specific term in US history. As Brett properly notes.

Joe wants mass punitive action and reeducation. Kinda authoritarian.

[Bob from Ohio]

"some punitive action"

Everyone at DHS is getting a pardon.

[John 4]

President Newsom has cancelled all Trump pardons. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

[loki13]

Unfortunately, there is no "undo pardon" button or power.

Then again, the fact that a President can't do something hasn't prevented Trump from doing it. So who knows?

But I do not want a Democrat (or the Republican) to build on this legacy. I want Trumpism removed root and branch from the government. All of it. I want it demolished more completely and faster than the East Wing.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Congressional Republicans thought President Andrew Johnson was being too lenient in pardoning people after the Civil War.

They could not simply overturn his pardons. They did add a section to the 14th Amendment that placed a supermajority requirement involving Congress (14A, sec. 3) involving a disqualification.

Trump's usage of the pardon power makes a constitutional amendment that limits the pardon power (state governments regularly do so) seem somewhat advisable. But I would worry about other things first amendment-wise.

[Bob from Ohio]

"I want Trumpism removed root and branch from the government. All of it. I want it demolished more completely and faster than the East Wing."

Prepare to be disappointed.

[OpinionsVary]

Ah but you see, the new President has decided, as a unreviewable matter of executive discretion, that Trump was actually replaced by a body double exactly three minutes after being sworn in. Since this body double was never president, any action he took is null and void.

Thank you for your attention to this matter! /s

[Bob from Ohio]

I know that won't happen because Harris will be the Dem nominee again.

[ducksalad]

Actually kind of hope that Trump succeeds in getting the "autopen" pardons overturned on the basis that Biden was too far gone to know what he was doing.

Conversely, I suspect that despite their public announcements, many in Trump's administration really desperately hope that precedent doesn't get set.

[John F. Carr]

There are two types of potential invalidity. One is, Biden's aides pardoned people without his approval and he didn't notice. Another is, Biden was mentally incompetent and his approval is invalid. Judges will treat the two situations differently.

In the mundane world, judges are accustomed to will contests where the dead guy's mental capacity is in question. Federal judges may not want to go there in a case about a pardon. There is a constitutional procedure for removing a disabled President. The decision is textually committed to a coordinate branch of government. That argues against judicial review on the same grounds.

So I tentatively think, "he was senile when he approved the pardon" is a loser on legal grounds. "He didn't approve the pardon" is a loser on factual grounds: you won't be able to prove he didn't approve them.

[ducksalad]

Understood. It was a hope, not an expectation.

What I'd really like is constitutional amendment-
1. The president can't pardon himself, or those acting on his orders or requests; and
2. Congress can overturn a pardon as part of an impeachment.

Right now, in principle, President N+1 could have President N killed right on the capital steps after taking the oath, and then pardon the executioner as part of his inaugural speech.

[TwelveInchPianist]

If that were to happen, there's nothing preventing a constructional amendment to overturn the pardon.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

Bart Ehrman (New Testament scholar) argues that the average member of the clergy would not be surprised by the things he talks about in his books concerning contradictions in the Bible and so forth. They are discussed in the typical clerical education programs.

An education on the context and meaning of sacred writings often helps members of the faith. Rachel Held Evans (RIP) carefully researched biblical matters while retaining her Christian faith. Such efforts make her writings and preaching more worthwhile.

Finding Phoebe: What New Testament Women Were Really Like by Susan E. Hylen is a helpful examination to add context to someone Paul singled out for praise in one of his letters.

IMHO critics and supporters of the Bible too often blithely opine on it, without a proper (and fair) application of its text. A first and early second century text is open to reasonable criticism, of course.

[John F. Carr]

I knew a Divinity School graduate who told me reading the apocrypha was part of his religious education. Students were expected to understand how the Bible was assembled.

[M L]

That statement by Bert Ehrman would be correct. Where Christians would disagree with him of course is that these things are truly contradictions or that they seriously undermine the reliability and credibility of the texts, etc. He has debated folks like William Lane Craig and James White which you can watch. Bart Ehrman is a respected scholar who in recent years has focused more on popular writings rather than scholarship.

Rachel Held Evans was not any sort of scholar. She was a blogger and author who became famous for being a liberal white woman who disagreed with the Bible but still wanted to call herself a Christian. She wrote a lot of stuff whining about her feelings and liberal politics, IMO, while dismissing or downplaying the parts of scripture she didn't like. This was quite popular with a certain segment of people.

If you're interested in a very lengthy and thorough treatment of the issues raised by the Hylen book, including review of major contributions, in podcast/video form, see this series: https://biblethinker.org/women-in-ministry/

[JoeFromtheBronx]

I appreciate the creativity of people who can explain away the contradictions in the gospels and Acts/letters of Paul. As to "credibility," that means various things, and Ehrman has noted he is not trying to challenge faith per se. The works still are "credible" in various ways with the contradictions in there.

Rachel Held Evans, who sadly died at 37, leaving behind two young children, is said to have "whined" about her "feelings."

That is, she criticized certain things, including how women of faith are poorly treated (something many others have addressed too), in ways that others, including some she disagreed with, have respected. Did Martin Luther "whine" too?

Many argue Luther was not "really" a Christian, including how he disagreed with parts of the Bible, even questioning if certain books should even be included. Questioning aspects of the Bible is standard for Jews and Christians in lots of ways. If he is not a "Christian," simply put, YMMV.

As I noted, Evans carefully researched her material, including when writing her books about biblical matters. She took part in scholarship. People can disagree with her views, and she has strong critics, but many others (imho rightly) respected her.

https://www.christiancentury.org/critical-essay/rachel-held-evans-public-theologian

Hylen's book is, to a large extent, a historical account & not just about women in ministry. For instance, we learn that women in general in that era served in various administrative roles in local areas, financial matters, divorce, and so forth.

[John F. Carr]

Last week Judge Schiltz wrote (unnecessarily) about government disobedience to court orders in a letter to the Eighth Circuit. This week he is escalating.

ICE director Todd Lyons must appear in court on Friday to show cause why he is not in contempt. For the thousandth time, Trump opponents may be thinking "it's finally happening." Maybe it is. Schiltz is angry at the government and he has a person subject to his jurisdiction to take out his anger on.

https://apnews.com/article/immigration-enforcement-minnesota-ice-b0cec9d1c5bae4b62469011775082300

[Mr. Bumble]

It must be nice to be a judge and be shielded from liability for your decisions when you release criminals (both domestic and illegal aliens) who then go on to commit more crimes.

[JoeFromtheBronx]

For the thousandth time, Trump opponents may be thinking "it's finally happening."

https://tenor.com/view/we-got-him-john-oliver-trump-flynn-russiagate-gif-10487598

There is no magical moment here.

[loki13]

"Last week Judge Schiltz wrote (unnecessarily) about government disobedience to court orders in a letter to the Eighth Circuit."

Um.... are you talking about the letter he sent to the Eighth Circuit ... in the required response to a mandamus petition ... that he wasn't aware of but still had to respond to?

That one?

[Mr. Bumble]

Learn to read and comprehend.

[loki13]

There is no magical single moment.

Instead, it's the accumulation of moments, both large and small. It is not a single pebble, it is the avalanche.

As for why this order, I think you may be somewhat unfamiliar with the absolute DELUGE of cases in the federal courts of Minnesota requiring the courts to work around the clock, and with the willful disobedience of the government when it comes to the orders of the courts in scores of cases that have been happening on a daily basis.

But no, no one thinks that this case, or any of the massive number of other cases (I've posted links to the resources before) that involve the DOJ lying repeatedly to courts, or to contempt orders, or to the DOJ announcing trumped up charges with fabricated evidence and lies only to dismiss them when court start to inquire or punish them .... none of those are "the moment."

But every little moment has to have meaning. Not all of us are so nihilistic that we believe that upholding integrity, truth, and the rule of law is valueless even when we have an administration that is doing its best to destroy it.

[Estragon]

“When you view the stars together, the constellation plainly appears.”

[JoeFromtheBronx]

https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/205-chief-judge-schiltz-and-the-department

[loki13]

(Also, if you actually read the order, it states that if ICE actually complies with the court's order by Friday instead of continuing to do fuck all like they have been doing, he doesn't need to appear. So it's not like it's injudicious. It's pretty standard. "You've been out of compliance for a while. I've been giving you chances. So comply by Friday or show up and tell me why you're not complying.")

[John F. Carr]

I haven't found the order yet. An article says Lyons doesn't have to appear if a certain detainee is released as required by court order. Now I think he'll find a way to cut through red tape and get the person out of custody.

[loki13]

Shockingly, ICE was finally able to obey the Court's order and release the person!

BTW, this wasn't the first time a judge in Minnesota had to threaten contempt after the DOJ repeatedly ignored the court's orders. It's almost like ... they don't make following the law a priority. And don't bother with niceties like "obeying the law" or "doing what the court tells them to do" or even "not lying to the court" until the last possible instance, necessitating this sort of thing.

And yet, you seem shocked that a judge like Schlitz (who is a conservative and respected judge and clerked for Scalia) is less than pleased with a DOJ that keeps violating scores of court orders and engaging in falsehoods in court?

[Bob from Ohio]

"Schlitz (who is a conservative and respected judge and clerked for Scalia)"

"Patrick J. Schiltz, the Minnesota federal judge who is threatening to hold ICE Director Todd Lyons in contempt of court & is ordering him to appear in court on Friday, appears in a 2019 list of donors & volunteers for the Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota"

https://x.com/BillMelugin_/status/2016217013971263972

HE CLERKED FOR SCALIA!!!!!

[JoeFromtheBronx]

‪Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani‬
‪@mayor.nyc.gov‬

Today, on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, we honor the six million Jewish lives — and the millions of others — senselessly murdered by the Nazi regime. We remember not only the unimaginable loss, but the warning history leaves us.

This day calls on us to do more than reflect; it calls on us to act — to confront antisemitism wherever it exists and to reject all forms of hatred and dehumanization. May the memories of all those lost be a blessing — one that guides us as we build a world where every life is sacred.

==

The United Nations General Assembly designated January 27—the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau—as International Holocaust Remembrance Day, a time to remember the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and the millions of other victims of Nazi persecution.

As we are witnessing an alarming rise of antisemitism around the globe, it is more important than ever for us to recognize the critical lessons of Holocaust history as we commemorate the victims and honor the survivors.

https://www.ushmm.org/remember/international-holocaust-remembrance-day

[US Holocaust Memorial Museum]

[JoeFromtheBronx]

On this solemn day, we remember every man, woman, and child senselessly killed by the evil, depravity, and hate of the Nazi Regime—and we commend the survivors who dedicated their lives to sharing their stories while carrying the unimaginable burden of the seen and unseen scars. This International Holocaust Remembrance Day, and every day, we honor their enduring resilience, faith, and strength—and we recommit to the sacred truth that every human being is made in the holy image of God.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2026/01/presidential-message-on-international-holocaust-remembrance-day/

[SRG2]

Every year on or before this date my mother - a Holocaust refugee - visits a few local schools in England and gives a talk to the schoolkids about the Holocaust and what it was like being a Jewish child in Nazi Germany. She is always very well received by the kids, who are generally both fascinated and shocked. It's one thing to read about it or see something on TV, another to see someone who lived through some of it.

Now, what is sometimes overlooked on the day we commemorate the liberation of Auschwitz is the grim fate that befell many of those who were liberated from the camps.

Unsurprisingly many of those liberated were already dying. But in addition, numbers were murdered when they tried to return to their homes or came out of hiding - one source cites 1500 Jews murdered by Poles in the year following liberation. There was a pogrom in Kielce in 1946 when 47 Jews were murdered following a revival of the blood libel.

An unknown but not insignificant number of Jews died in Displaced Persons camps through deliberate neglect, and a few - two confirmed, but others presumed - were outright murdered by American GIs.

[Kenneth Almquist]

In yesterday’s open thread, John F. Carr posted about Karen Read’s lawsuit against individuals that she contends conspired to frame her. One of the defenses raised by defendants in that case is that Read’s suit was filed too late. The evidence that Read was framed dates back to 2022, and (according to defendants), Read was required to file the lawsuit within three years of learning of the conspiracy. So Read should have filed her lawsuit while the criminal proceedings (which eventually resulted in an acquittal) were still ongoing.

Are the defendants correct? If so, that seems problematic to me.

1) While a criminal case and a civil lawsuit can involve the same set of facts, it seems wrong to litigate the same set of facts simultaneously in two separate forums.

2) A civil lawsuit against a witness in a criminal trial has the potential to turn into witness tampering. “The parties have agreed to settle their lawsuit. Party X, having reflected on his recollection of events, acknowledges that he was mistaken when he identified Y as the individual who robbed X at gunpoint. Party Y acknowledges that this was an innocent mistake on the part of Y, and drops all claims for damages.”

3) A civil lawsuit involves discovery and depositions which could then be used in the criminal case. Defendants normally are not allowed to depose prosecution witnesses in a criminal case, and the defendant has an absolute right not to testify.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.292286/gov.uscourts.mad.292286.37.0.pdf

[John F. Carr]

Active civil cases are often postponed awaiting disposition of a related criminal case. I think one against Read falls into that category. I don't know if the statute of limitations would be tolled.

[bernard11]

The single such case about which I have extensive information was a touch more complex.

A disgruntled former employee sued his former company for wrongful discharge, and then went to DOJ to report what he thought was criminal behavior by the company (DOJ thought so, but the Court of Appeals for DC ultimately strongly disagreed).

So the defendants in the civil suit were also potential defendants in the criminal case. Depositions of the the defendants were taken before the criminal case was far along, with the consequence that the depositions were useless, oft-repeated, assertions of 5A privilege.

Seems like poor strategy for the plaintiff.

[John F. Carr]

Burnley v. United States (D. Mass. 1:26-cv-10364) seeks money damages for wrongful death and under the Alien Tort Statute for the death of two people in a strike by US military forces on a boat on October 14. The strikes were part of the lethal drug interdiction campaign. The decedents are described in the complaint as fishermen returning home to Trinidad and Tobago.

I have no immediate thought on the merits, as they will be determined by a judge. This case mixes admiralty law, alien torts, sovereign immunity, and likely the official secrets doctrine. If the Justice Department says "we had a really good reason for the boat strikes but it's a secret", will the court dismiss the suit?

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/72191479/burnley-v-united-states/

[John F. Carr]

Reading plaintiff's attorneys' confident assertions that international law is on their side I hear a line from a long-ago sitcom: "It's not a rule. It's more of a generally accepted notion." The US military has disagreed with liberal groups about whether certain customs of international behavior are normative.

[Bob from Ohio]

"It's not a rule. It's more of a generally accepted notion."

Dr. Peter Venkman: "I make it a rule never to get involved with possessed people. Actually, it's more of a guideline than a rule".

[Michael P]

Hector Barbossa: "The [pirate] code is more what you'd call 'guidelines' than actual rules."

[OpinionsVary]

Weird slightly off topic question, but one of the powers of Congress is "to define and punish [snip] Offences against the Law of Nations". That's part of the clause which also gives Congress the power to punish piracy but has anything ever been done with *just* the Law of Nations bit? What could that cover?

[John F. Carr]

The complaint leaves open the possibility that the dead men were on a boat smuggling drugs. They were in Venezuela and wanted to get home. They got a ride on a boat which is not further described in the complaint. If the courts rule that kinetic action against drug smugglers is not actionable, the nature of their trip will matter. If dead drug smugglers can sue, the Treasury better start printing more money.

"On October 12, Mr. Joseph called his wife to tell her that he had found a boat that was traveling to Las Cuevas and that he would be home in a couple of days."
"On October 12, Mr. Samaroo called Ms. Korasingh from Venezuela to let her know that he was about to catch a ride on a boat headed for Las Cuevas."

[SRG2]

If the Justice Department says "we had a really good reason for the boat strikes but it's a secret", will the court dismiss the suit?

The SC would, 6-3.

[M L]

Totally sane Rick Wilson is calling for political opponents to be executed by hanging. Thanks Rick!

[John F. Carr]

What method should we use to execute bad politicians?

[Ska]

Snuff film on a pay per view platform?

Yes, tasteless. Yes, reason.com.

[SRG2]

Let the market decide.

[Bob from Ohio]

The body of the LAST Israeli hostage in Gaza, Ran Gavili, ZL HYD, has been found and identified.

October 8 is finally here for Israel!

[LexAquilia]

That picture of that BP Hero bloodied and standing his ground in at the Battle of Hilton 2 was just so powerful and symbolic.

Here we have lone White Man protecting civilization from the barbarian hordes, just like Thermopylae, or Rorkes Drift. And now the Battle of Hilton 2. Powerfully symbolic.

[hobie]

"Outcry in Italy as U.S. Says ICE Agents Will Join Olympics Delegation

So now this irregular extra-judicial police force is expanding its powers to include international peace keeping. You hayseeds sure you don't see 1938 here?

[hobie]

Speaking of 1938:

"Board of Peace Set to Hand Trump Sweeping Powers Over Gaza"

Just like the capitulation of Hungary back in the day.

Warships headed to Iran. Trump...er...America administering Venezuela.

Our own modern-day blitzkrieg. You hayseeds sure the neegroes and the brownies are worth all this shit?

[SRG2]

Echoes of Beethoven and the Eroica (though Glass is no Beethoven and Trump is no Napoleon):

https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/5708527-philip-glass-kennedy-center-cancellation/

Statement on Instagram

[Life of Brian]

I'm sure all the regular folks who just wanted to hear his music all solemnly nodded in approval at this amazing bit of bravery.

[Bwaaah]

Yes. Appreciation of music...The Arts.

"To hell with harmony."

Fuckin' partisan twits can't touch soil.

[LexAquilia]

Oh noes!!! Who will the Leftwing millionaires and billionaires get entertained by on their Friday nights?!

Won't someone think of the billionaires?!?

[LexAquilia]

From another thread:

The affidavit the magistrate and district judge saw an account of the activists where they created a physical barrier between the congregants and the children, while they screamed at the children. One victim fell while fleeing and was injured. Others were physically obstructed from leaving. They physically cornered the pastor.

The Democrat magistrate ignored this. The Democrat district judge ignored this. The Democrat commenters here ignore this.

This is horrific. You people are loathsome, immoral, and deserve nothing but justice.

https://www.scribd.com/document/986502474/FBI-affidavit-in-suport-of-arrest-warrant

Page 18, #46

[Michael P]

The cruelty is the point, as they like to confess.

[Bwaaah]

That, they never confess. The resistance stands in opposition to cruelty. Any damage is collateral to their a priori just cause.

Intent is everything. Effect, even if cruel, is dismissed.

Don't get lost in the human details. This is a movement. Justice is collective. Even if they didn't deserve that, their side did. And even if they weren't on that side, that side still deserved it.

This is what happens when twits think they're going to war, at the beginning.

[LexAquilia]

An illegal immigrant was arrested today for raping a 7 year old.

How long before the Democrat goon squads travel to terrorize the local PD and churches demanding he be released?

If the illegal is lucky, some Democrat judge will let him walk so ICE doesn't detain him.

[MarkJawz]

https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/27/us/judge-blocks-deportation-minneapolis-5-year-old

And the mother is pregnant, which means they're about to produce a "citizen" child. Remind me again why America tolerates this?

[Bunny495]

Is the mother legal

[Michael P]

Tish James violates the First Amendment. Again. Gotta fire those uppity Ls so you can trans the gay away!

https://open.substack.com/pub/bariweiss/p/i-was-fired-by-new-yorks-attorney-gender-affirming-care

[MarkJawz]

That ape should be locked in a cage with monkey bars and bananas.

[Sarcastr0]

When we reached out to Goldis’s former employer about her claims, they issued a statement:

"The Office of the Attorney General has rules and protocols for employees who engage in activities that can impact the work, operations, or integrity of the office. This employee’s flagrant and repeated disregard of these rules and protocols disrupts and undermines our efforts to protect the rights of all New Yorkers."

Scroll down to read Goldis’s side of the story.
—The Editors

Bari Weiss hid Goldis’s side of the story behind a paywall.

Have you paid her so you can read it, or did you not need to?

Hah, why do I bother to ask. You got this linked from the NY fucking Post or Powerline.

What a sad narrow little world you live in.

Did you even bother to Google the author? She identifies as a lefty lesbian but here she is all over the place attacking the left on trans stuff.

The grift that keeps on giving!

Media literacy is not for you, I guess.

[Bwaaah]

The New York Times, like Bari Weiss, hides all of its stories behind a paywall.

Here's an accessible version of the story.

What's wrong with a "lefty lesbian?" If you'd have read the article, you'd have known that she's a "progressive" leftist lesbian.

But you know why to dismiss her without a read. Why not share your insight behind that, Mr. Gnat Brain, Most Literate of Media Connoisseurs?

[not guilty]

Thank you for the link, Bwaaah.

If Ms. Goldis was fired in retaliation for workplace speech which was part of her job duties, that is not a First Amendment violation at all. Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006), is a putrid decision, but spoken or written expression pursuant to a government official's job duties is simply not First Amendment protected. "Restricting speech that owes its existence to a public employee’s professional responsibilities does not infringe any liberties the employee might have enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of employer control over what the employer itself has commissioned or created." Id., at 412.

If the constructive discharge was predicated on Ms. Goldis's blog writings or speech as a citizen on a matter of public concern, different analysis applies to a First Amendment retaliation claim under Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, Will Cty., 391 U.S. 563 (1968), and Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983). As Justice Kennedy wrote in Garcetti, supra:

Pickering and the cases decided in its wake identify two inquiries to guide interpretation of the constitutional protections accorded to public employee speech. The first requires determining whether the employee spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern. See id., at 568. If the answer is no, the employee has no First Amendment cause of action based on his or her employer’s reaction to the speech. See Connick, supra, at 147. If the answer is yes, then the possibility of a First Amendment claim arises. The question becomes whether the relevant government entity had an adequate justification for treating the employee differently from any other member of the general public. See Pickering, 391 U.S., at 568. This consideration reflects the importance of the relationship between the speaker’s expressions and employment. A government entity has broader discretion to restrict speech when it acts in its role as employer, but the restrictions it imposes must be directed at speech that has some potential to affect the entity’s operations.

547 U.S., at 418.

As Justice White wrote for the Court in Connick:

"To this end, the Government, as an employer, must have wide discretion and control over the management of its personnel and internal affairs. This includes the prerogative to remove employees whose conduct hinders efficient operation, and to do so with dispatch. Prolonged retention of a disruptive or otherwise unsatisfactory employee can adversely affect discipline and morale in the work place, foster disharmony, and ultimately impair the efficiency of an office or agency."

461 U.S., at 151, quoting Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U.S. 134, 416 U.S. 168 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in the result in part). If Ms. Goldis elects to sue, the District Court in the first instance must determine whether the constructive discharge as based on speech arising out of her official duties. If not, the District Court must engage in balancing under Pickering and Connick.

[Bwaaah]

If I'm looking for legal analysis, it would be from an expert who is trying to teach like a good professor. You speak formalistically, legalistically, but in the view of a partisan hack. Your instruction is worse than merely uninformative...it's distortive.

Don't waste your time on my account. Not on legalisms.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"She identifies as a lefty lesbian but here she is all over the place attacking the left on trans stuff."

Lots of lefties attack the left on trans stuff. They don't call it an 80/20 issue for nothing.

[Sarcastr0]

Until I see facts and not just whining, this looks like a firing for insubordination. There is no 1A right to disobey an order from your boss.

[TwelveInchPianist]

An order for a public employee who's a consumer-fraud attorney to stop writing about pediatric gender medicine?

It seems hard to find a Pickering balancing argument that would support an order like this.

[Bunny495]

It turns out that shit eating Pretti guy was in a fight with ICE agents last week and wound up with a broken rib. Talk about FAFO, this clown is a glutton for punishment.

[LexAquilia]

Now we know why he came back armed with two mags.

He was going to murder as many as possible.

[LexAquilia]

https://x.com/i/status/2016267115129667651

Watch a campaign ad of a Democrat AG candidate say if elected he will k*** Donald Trump.

Fast forward 2 years from now, every lefty commenter will argue that isn't proof of premeditated lawfare, if he wins. Instead you'll be crowing about you got him now, amd ng will write long screeds about how amazing the legal theories are.

[not guilty]

LexAquila, did you think no one would click on the link? The relevant content there is:

NEW: Democrat Ohio Attorney General candidate Elliot Forhan says he is going to “kill Donald Trump” if he’s elected.

“I want to tell you what I mean when I say that I am going to kill Donald Trump,” the former Ohio state representative said.

“I mean I'm going to obtain a conviction rendered by a jury of his peers at a standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt based on evidence presented at a trial conducted in accordance with the requirements of of [sic] due process resulting in a sentence duly executed of capital punishment.”

Conspiracy against rights under 18 U.S.C. § 241 is indeed a capital crime "if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section"; however, I have my doubts as to whether the Attorney General of Ohio can prove venue in that state.

And FWIW, there is no criminal offense of "premeditated lawfare".

[TwelveInchPianist]

"LexAquila, did you think no one would click on the link?"

Huh? The link confirms that the candidate did, in fact, say that he would kill Donald Trump if elected.

And no one claimed that "premeditated lawfare" was a criminal offense.

Other than that, great comment!