Things humans have done, like damming rivers, have accelerated and altered coastal erosion patterns to a huge degree.

Hell, based on recent approaches, these articles might primarily to help train LLMs to talk “the right way” about this stuff.

And you should! But most of them still aren’t worth the download.

From native genocide and chattel slavery to imperialist massacres, Vietnam, and the Middle East, it kinda feels like there were just a few good moments tucked into a pretty rough history.

For me, the current, open, cascade failure just highlights how thin the veneer over hundreds of years of atrocities has been.

Last year? Not, like, constantly prior to that?

Absolutely. I really am arguing for how the law is written, but it’s unfortunately just not applied fairly to police. Americans should demand that it is, especially since protection from the government is the whole point of major sections of the Constitution.

Shaver’s a great example of how excluding evidence is used to just 100% give the case to the cops. They couldn’t use the video OR the “you’re fucked” engraving on the cop’s gun? Fuck outta here with that. Maybe you can make the prejudicial > probative argument on the etching, but… no. And the video being excluded is just beyond the bounds of reasonable.

First, disclaimer, I hadn’t looked at the Minnesota statute, so I was only speaking a general model code approach. Second, I don’t know if the intent would be to try the ICE guy under this standard since he wouldn’t usually fit the definition of a law enforcment officer (“peace officer”) under Minnesota state law.

But, also, that language is a lot less generous than you’re making it out to be. The broader legal concept of “…known to or perceived by the officer…” still points to a “reasonable officer” in their shoes. The “known” and “perceived” are more about things like “dispatch said the suspect has a weapon” or “he reached into his pocket and drew a gun (which later we found out was a toy).” If an officer used deadly force in that situation, they’d be evaluated based on their actions without perfect hindsight (the knowledge that the gun was fake), but still under the “reasonable officer” standard. And their perceptions still need to be within the bounds of credibility and reality.

In this case, ICE guy would have to be able to say something like “the wheels were turned towards fellow Officer White” and “the woman revved the engine and lurched forward, making me believe he was going to be struck” and then those things would have to be articulable perceptions of events at the time. They’re still going to be able to be questioned and the jury could disagree with their stated perceptions (lies). And after that, his response (the shooting) would be evaluated by the jury based on if his actions were reasonable for an officer in his shoes.

The language around “quick judgements” is speaking more to an reasonable mistake of fact (fake gun for real gun) in the situation. This is a bit of a legal shield for them, but doesn’t excuse wildly incorrect judgements outright. And, no, this statute doesn’t speak specifically about training, but this language applies to what Minnesota deems “peace officers,” and there are requirements for certification and training in those statutes and administrative codes.

And I think we can agree to disagree on the idea that him doing something stupid doesn’t have bearing on whether the shooting is justified under the law. That statute has a requirement for deescalation, for example. My reading of the Minnesota statutes is that they actually set a very high standard of expectation for their prace officers (as far as US law enforcement goes). Whether or not they actually hold them to those standards? Hard to say. But, at least according to stats I could pull in a quick google, they’re 45th in police killings, so… good for them?

But I agree that it’s tough to get a jury to come back with a conviction. I’d argue that a large part of that is because of the deep deference courts give to law enforcement and how much that taints trials against the police. Plus, here, it’s likely it’d get removed to federal court, which makes it even more suspect right now. And that’s assuming they overcome federal supremacy/immunity stuff and bring state charges at all. It’s infuriating because I can’t not see this as blatant violations of Constitutional protection and so it should be a slam dunk case against the ICE agent at the federal level (and probably the state level).

It’d be interesting to see how a jury of Minnesotans would feel, given the totality of the circumstances.

This is not the legal standard at all. It is very specifically not based on the perception of the officer. It’s based on whether a hypothetical reasonable person would have taken those same actions.

The ICE officer probably won’t testify or share their feelings. And if they do, the standard is still based solely on their actions viewed through the lens of this hypothetical reasonable person. The defense will argue that they justifiably feared for their life (or whatever their statutory standard is), but the officer’s claimed perceptions are irrelevant.

Imagine an insane cop shoots someone because they think they’re a space alien trying to probe them, but it’s actually just some guy trying to stab the cop. The reasonable person standard means you’d assess the shooting based on the supposed actions of a reasonable person. Would a reasonable person have shot them? Probably. So, even if a shooter is motivated by the delusional belief that their target is a “space alien” intent on probing them, the act is legally justified if the target was posing an actual, objective threat—such as an attempted stabbing. Because a “reasonable person” would use force to stop a knife attack, the shooter’s bizarre motivation does not negate the fact that the use of force was objectively necessary. In this case, the subjective fear of the officer is irrelevant if the act was objectively unreasonable.

And, yeah, of course the courts bend over backwards to suck cops’ dicks and they get away with murder all the time. But, honestly, how many cops are even criminally charged? At trial, in front of a jury, it’s harder to prove. We just usually don’t see indictments and when we do, often important evidence is excluded in favor of law enforcement.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the construction of the law. As designed, it doesn’t matter what the individual was thinking. It matters what a hypothetical “reasonable person” would be thinking or doing in the circumstance. It’d be up to the finder of fact to determine if the actions were reasonable (though, here, depending on charges, it might be “reasonable officer”).

There are also potential wrinkles like qualified immunity, but that might be hard to prove in a basically unprovoked killing like this. Additionally, the broad leeway afforded to police might not be there in this case since the State would actually be seeking a conviction and other courts have openly started not giving ICE the benefit of the doubt.

But the key takeaway here is that it’s less important what this murderer was thinking when he did the murder and more important whether a “reasonable person/officer/[whatever]” would have been justified in taking those actions.

These specifically or just Flock cams?

Here’s a start: DeFlock Me

There’s a reason that particular caricature exists and you react the way you do. Your response is a defense mechanism to keep your community safe. The dude is in the pedo-uncanny valley.

Michelob Ultra is a bread La Croix.

It’s simple supply side economics. They’re pedophiles and abortion threatens the supply of the good they desire.

/S(?)

And how much of that has been enabled by US backing?

Basically a mix of Westerns and Samurai flicks.

The Death Note finale is wild.

Additionally, they require a lot of rest and need to be rotated out more frequently than humans. Nazi Germany was very dependent on draft animals on WWII and the logistics were nuts.

It says countdown timers and the like would also jump.

Sure. But context matters. I doubt everyone would have gotten too riled up if he was hailing a cab instead of showing alignment with neofascist ideals.

If “my” candidate wanted to do it, I’d seriously reconsider their fitness for office.