Recent posts

#1

Off the Record / Re: 1776 - 250 Years On - Cele...

Last post by viper37 - Today at 02:51:11 AM

The ICE agents in Minneapolis have begun a little late in their renactments, but the Patriots protesters are going strong in these part, I hear.

#2

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Jacob - Today at 02:30:08 AM

I want to selectively shut down the social media platforms of the people who want to overthrow liberal democracy and destroy the EU.

#3

Off the Record / Re: Brexit and the waning days...

Last post by Richard Hakluyt - Today at 02:26:16 AM

Meanwhile,what is happening in that hellhole London, with KHAN!!! as mayor?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/jan/12/london-homicide-rate-drops-to-lowest-in-more-than-a-decade

"In 2025, the Metropolitan police recorded 97 homicides in London, down from 153 in 2019, and down from 109 in 2024."

That is about 1 per 100k, excellent stats 

#4

Off the Record / Re: Russo-Ukrainian War 2014-2...

Last post by Zoupa - Today at 01:37:30 AM

7th Brigade mortar team, somewhere near Pokrovsk. Fuck russia.

#5

Off the Record / Re: The AI dooooooom thread

Last post by Syt - Today at 12:59:45 AM

Sorry, forgot the second part:



Now, there's going off the rails and there's letting people create sexualized deep fakes of kids. Which Musk addresses by limiting access for non-paying customers.

#6

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - January 11, 2026, 11:24:09 PM

S&P futures down only 40 pts so far in the overnight.  Not as bad as I would have feared.  But will see what happens on market open.

[totality of the circumstances]

#7

Off the Record / Re: The Shooting Gallery: Poli...

Last post by The Minsky Moment - January 11, 2026, 11:16:40 PM

I agree.  The only thing that matters in terms of the shooting is whether the movement of the car constituted an immediate threat.

That is not the only thing that matters.

I do think we need to distinguish between two different concepts: (1) whether a use of force by a law enforcement officer was justified in the sense that it was a necessary response and application of reasonable and proper law enforcement methods in context, and (2) whether it is justified in the legal sense of providing a valid legal defense to criminal prosecution or civil liability.

Many considerations are relevant to both: in both situations, the totality of the circumstances are relevant, including the events leading up to the event and even events afterward to the extent it reflects on motive.  However, the standards for (2) are somewhat more forgiving and subjective than for (1).  You can be acquitted of murder but that doesn't mean you weren't an unprofessional goon that has no business carrying weaponry and a badge in public.

Whether the car posed "an immediate threat" is relevant, but certainly not determinative. Did the officers do things to escalate or make that situation more likely to occur?  Could the threat be avoided by using means other than using lethal force?  How serious was the threat?  Did using lethal force meaningfully reduce the risk posed by the threat?

Many of those questions could be answered if a normal investigation were conducted, or a proper litigation, in which experts would analyze the car's movement and velocity in detail, as well as the officer's precise position and the timing and direction of the shots.  Alas, it seems we can't rely on the FBI to do that job objectively.  Perhaps the plaintiff's lawyers will unearth the truth assuming the feds don't despoil the evidence.

From my own unaided eye's view, it looks really bad. The officers appear to escalate the situation and act in a threatening manner. It looks like she is trying to escape, not harm. With the officer in front well to the left, she is turning her wheels sharply right - apparently perpendicular to his position. The car is moving from a dead stop and thus seems unlikely to be moving at a velocity to pose serious harm.  And indeed, the officer appear to be struck and suffer no visible harm.  But that's how it looks unaided.  A proper expert analysis if fairly conducted could answer these questions. 

#8

Off the Record / Re: What does a TRUMP presiden...

Last post by Razgovory - January 11, 2026, 11:04:19 PM

That is concerning.  

#9

Off the Record / Re: The Shooting Gallery: Poli...

Last post by grumbler - January 11, 2026, 10:52:40 PM

As a general principle, yes.  If shooting can't reasonably be expected to stop any harm, then you shouldn't be shooting.

Well, I don't think that's how the statute is written or generally interpreted and I would shoot.

The statute is written and interpreted as the use of deadly force is allowed if it is to prevent harm to the shooter or others. If the deadly force will not prevent the harm, it is banned.

Granted, the cop cannot always accurately gauge, in the heat of the moment, whether the use of force is going to achieve the desired results, but in this case the danger had passed before the ICE agent opened fire.  He shot as she passed by because he was pissed that she brushed him with the bumper of her car.

#10

Off the Record / Re: The Shooting Gallery: Poli...

Last post by Admiral Yi - January 11, 2026, 10:09:49 PM

Your example doesn't work for this situation, as the killer placed himself in a threatening space by choosing to stand in front of the car.

No one said it did.