@The_Nybbler's banner p

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

				

User ID: 174

The_Nybbler

If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.

8 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 21:42:16 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 174

Unlike Iran and Venezuela, there's a lot of actual information available for Minneapolis.

But you can add Cuba now, Trump's at least talking about it.

He's serious about wanting it, not serious about taking it by force from Denmark.

And yet, I find myself living in an apartment in a city, surrounded by black and brown people, not far from a bunch of Korean and Japanese law firms and restaurants, and with a largely LGBT friend group, and I'm generally pretty happy with my life, and I feel safe and good about where I live most of the time.

Yeah. Because you feel like one of them.

Try being in a place where you think you're one of them, and then you say something like "You know, calling Curtis Yarvin a Nazi seems kinda dumb because he's Jewish" or "Uh, this story about a rape on campus is probably totally made up" or "I don't think there's anything wrong with the "Hide yo' wives" meme' and having everyone turn on you. You'll realize you were living in a fool's paradise.

Of course, YOU wouldn't ever say anything that would trigger such a reaction, right?

I don't think this is a problem with GDP as a measure, but a problem with measuring North Korea's GDP. Kim's regime doesn't exactly put out accurate economic reports.

If that is so, it should knock on the head the narrative that "she was only an innocent passer-by, driving home with her wife after dropping her kid off at school, a stranger to the city who wandered into the middle of this by mistake".

It should, but arguments are soldiers and ONLY that. The comments on the David French column about this demonstrate this pretty clearly.

e.g. from "Cece"

Remember this phrase. Officer-created jeopardy. “Intentionally placing oneself in the path of an operating vehicle is considered an "officer-created jeopardy". This action can undermine any later claim that the use of deadly force (such as shooting at the driver) was necessary for self-defense, as the officer voluntarily created the dangerous situation.”

We know from the videos this didn't happen. Doesn't matter. Gets repeated over and over.

from "Niko"

If Ms. Good had intended to hit or run over the officer, she would have driven forward. The moment she initially reversed, the officer must have known he was not in danger. He clearly drew his gun to prevent her from fleeing.

We know from the videos the officer did not draw his weapon until she started going forwards.

From "SD"

From the video, there is no way Ms. Good was trying to weaponize her vehicle. She was just driving away.

No way? She did actually hit him. Whether that was her intent is not proven, but certainly the video does not rule it out. Of course, despite this having been shown from several angles (and heard), plenty of people still insist he wasn't hit.

From "OG MD"

Unfortunately, ICE is not law enforcement and have no jurisdiction against a US citizen and certainly had no legal right to physically remove Ms. Good from her vehicle without a court order.

Good thing this wasn't OG JD because that's all false.

From "Don't Think Twice"

Renee Good’s wife is reported to have said, “We had whistles. They had guns.” That sums it up for me. You don’t shoot someone whose choice of protest weapon is a whistle.

No, her choice of a weapon was a Honda Pilot. Even if she didn't mean to hit the officer, she was using it to engage in her blockade tactics.

And from "Back to MN"

ICE agents here in MSP seem to be purposely engaging in the practice of surrounding someone in their car and then intentionally giving conflicting orders, so the target is not complying no matter what they do.

We've got video and audio that clearly reveals that the orders she was given were "Get out of the car" and "Get out of the fucking car". These aren't conflicting.

Evidence doesn't matter; there is only narrative.

Normally (i.e. not under Trump) the way this would play out is law enforcement and the administration would refuse to comment. The protestor story would be the only one which got around. Then some months later when the officer was acquitted, people would be shocked and there'd be another round of protests. The Trump administration is trying something different -- backing up their officer to hyperbolic lengths. I'm not sure if that's better, but the old way wasn't working.

I do know that when it comes to private property, you can normally use lethal force against an intruder without waiting to see how much a threat the person poses.

This is not in fact true in most states. Castle Doctrine says you have no duty to retreat within your home (though some states don't even have that), but you still have to have a reasonable fear of grave bodily harm.

If it had been ATF doing it

  1. They would not have been in danger from any car

  2. They would have shot at the wrong car

  3. They would have missed.

But even if all these things were false and things were mutatis mutandis just as in the Minnesota situation, the bulk of the right wing would not have supported the driver. That a lot of "moderates" have a headcanon that the right and the left are the same in this does not make it so.

It is true that some of the right is rather consciously trying to become more that way, since Jan 6, since the Trump assassination attempt, and especially since Charlie Kirk's assassination. But it's a fairly small part and it mostly hasn't taken.

The best action would probably jumping on the hood, or getting the center of gravity high enough the car knocks you over instead of under.

It's a Honda Pilot, not a Chevy Corvette. The hood is very high.

If it would show the Ice officer only lightly (harmlessly? calculated by him?) being touched by the corner of the car the optics would be bad.

Bad for whom? We know the ICE agent was not seriously injured by the car. This "he didn't even hit him" followed by (when sufficient demonstration of contact is made using multiple video and audio feeds) "but it wasn't that bad a hit" is just minimal retreat, not bad optics for the side which claimed correctly that he was in fact hit.

Optics, however, is whatever the leftist media decides it is.

Sure, but they're Muslims and furthermore have been inculcated with propaganda against the Little Satan since the revolution (or birth). Unless they've grown to hate the regime so much that this propaganda has actually made them favor Israel.

"US bad, actually" is a pretty common take, but

  1. When comparing the US to a Islamic theocracy, even with all the bad things the US has done, the US still comes out on top. BTW, the word "unprecedented' gets bandied out a lot nowadays, but one of the revolution's early acts was the Iran hostage crisis at the US embassy to Iran. That was "unprecedented".

and

  1. From the perspective an American, it doesn't matter. They're an enemy whether the US deserves the enmity or not.

As for the "Evil Empire", regardless of what they did or didn't do to the US, the USSR was that; ask the Latvians, Lithuanians, Estonians, Hungarians, and the survivors of the Prague Spring, among many others.

Liberals tearlessly argued this is what happens when you Fuck Around while conservatives argued she was righteously Resisting (TM).

Did they? Because as I recall, there were plenty of conservatives at the time who agreed that the Ashli Babbit shooting was a good shoot; it was somewhat later that some (but by no means all) groups on the right came out against. As opposed to here where on-the-close-order-of-zero leftists agree that this was a good shoot. Lots of other differences too; this looks like false both-sidesism.

Eh, the youth in the USA are disillusioned too.

A good chunk of the (old, in more ways than one) right would be happy with protests against Russia. It's just enjoying one's enemy's problems, in both that case and Iran.

I think Puerto Rico (and the other US territories) are a bit of a cautionary tale for any Greenlanders looking to join the US.

They're the second most wealthy place in the Caribbean by per-capita GDP PPP (Guyana moved way ahead thanks to oil discovery, something which figured into the recent Venezuela unpleasantness), and the wealthiest by nominal GDP. Their people are full American citizens with the right to move to the US mainland. Their territorial government is terrible, but that isn't due to being part of the US. There's a reason they keep not voting for independence.

but I get the impression that a lot of Iran's badness is exaggerated by Western media

They're a totalitarian Islamic state that has hostility to the US itself ("The Great Satan") as one of their basic principles. They're a major sponsor of terrorism and have long been engaging in a (mostly) proxy war against a US ally. The groypers may support the latter but for most US citizens I suspect all of these are bad.

As for their legitimacy, that's a internal matter. My impression is that aside from the more Westernized Iranians most of whom escaped, were driven out, or were killed in or after the revolution, the Iranian people do support them, but I could be wrong. I have been assuming the protests are sponsored by the letters C, I, and A.

Inuit whale in the US as well.

The first is that shooting her could not have reasonably been expected to stop the car.

Even granting for the moment that this is true, there is not, in fact, an exception in self defense for futility.

And if I understand the law correctly, each shot has to be justified on its own.

A person defending themselves is not necessarily required to re-evaluate after each act. The three shots were fired within one second, during which he was hit by the vehicle. This applies to civilians in anti-gun states, even -- it was a point in the Bernie Goetz trial.

The second reason is that he went against his police training and placed himself in harm's way.

Even if true, this would not defeat self defense.

My understanding of the law is that you lose your right to claim self-defence if you wrecklessly put yourself into the dangerous situation that left yourself no option but to use deadly force.

There's no such law, even in Minneapolis.

ICE is probably not the shining example of highly professional policing

Honestly, I think they may be in the top 10%. Every time I hear about an atrocity and can find evidence, the worst I see is them being normal cop-aggressive. The big exception is when I heard about them shooting a reporter with a beanbag round. Turned out that happened... but it was actually LAPD, not ICE.

We should relocate all the Greenlanders to Nunuvat for a one-time payment (One to them and a bigger one to Canada for taking them). Then Greenland might be worth the trouble.

The car was going like 5 km/h

The car was certainly going faster than 5km/h.

already turned mostly away from him

Ah, yes, "mostly". Not enough to, you know, not hit him.

First of all, it's not like pulling a gun because it was clear that she wasn't trying to hit him.

Clear to who? Certainly not to him.

He also caused the dangerous situation by walking out into the middle of the street in front of a moving car

He did no such thing. He was walking in street to the right of the stationary car's forward path when she started to make a K-turn, backing up and turning to point the nose of the car at him, then going forward. At which point he pulled the gun. As it turns out she kept turning, but he didn't know she would at the time.

He wasn't actually in front of the car when it started moving. Further it turns out to be impractical to do the work he does without at some point being in front of a (stationary) vehicle.

habitable islands (at least habitable enough for major military installations)

From what I've heard of Adak Island, that's not a high bar either. I was told that their version of a windsock is a log on a heavy chain.

Mobs are dangerous but dumb. Police have developed tactics over the centuries to disperse mobs, or at least divert them into areas where they do less damage. These won't work on organized agitators, and if there's a mob that's being directed by the organized agitators, they will work less well.