Ontopic Poo-litical Thrad

I never actually looked at Albuquerque on satellite before.

Gotta say, the "nice" end of town really has a nice geometric dystopian surburban hellscape vibe going on.

suburban_hell.jpg
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Jehannum
I never actually looked at Albuquerque on satellite before.

Gotta say, the "nice" end of town really has a nice geometric dystopian surburban hellscape vibe going on.

View attachment 12254
That's the far Northeast heights, full of the real well-to-do people. Not a house out there under 3/4 mil, in a city where the median income is < $50k.

Albuquerque bought into the whole suburban sprawl thing hard. We've even got a bedroom community laid out similarly in Rio Rancho for the rugged individualists™ who know TAXATION IS THEFT and property taxation is double theft.
 
Today in "BOTH SIDES ARE TEH SAME":


I thought Republicans were, in general, against death panels.

Fuck off. They’re pro-life. They would never do this.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Jehannum


They're warming us up for the big reveal.



 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Immigrant
So, Ghislane Maxwell's (or however you spell her name) court documents were released in their redacted form as a PDF.
Unfortunately, someone fucked up and instead of actually redacting it, they just changed the font background color to black, so the background matched the font and you couldn't read anything. While you couldn't read anything, you can hit CTRL+A, CTRL+C, open a Word document, then hit CTRL+V and read the entire court document.

 
Oof

EXCLUSIVE: Man who shot dead BLM protester in Austin is revealed as a 33-year-old active duty Army sergeant and Trump supporter who posted about using 'deadly force' against 'the mobs' before the killing


 
So, Ghislane Maxwell's (or however you spell her name) court documents were released in their redacted form as a PDF.
Unfortunately, someone fucked up and instead of actually redacting it, they just changed the font background color to black, so the background matched the font and you couldn't read anything. While you couldn't read anything, you can hit CTRL+A, CTRL+C, open a Word document, then hit CTRL+V and read the entire court document.


So I read a bunch of them it's mostly nitpicky complaint letters.
 
Oof

[SE=6]EXCLUSIVE: Man who shot dead BLM protester in Austin is revealed as a 33-year-old active duty Army sergeant and Trump supporter who posted about using 'deadly force' against 'the mobs' before the killing[/SZE]


[/SIZE]
Holy social media mining.
 
FWIW that tabloid didn't "reveal" anything and in fact got some facts backwards as far as who shot how many times and when, etc. And of course left out any facts that don't jive with their sensational clickbait and didn't source anything they did claim.

What did happen is the guys lawyer sent a statement to the local news station dutifully painting his client as being in the right and everyone grabbed it from there.

There is no credible, proven new info aside from the guys ID. Cops are still gathering and going through video and witness statements and probably will be for some time.

As I said in the other thread it'll hinge on whether the now dead guy really raised his rifle towards the car or not.

There's so many cameras downtown plus people with smartphones something that can't lie or be biased will have caught both the cars and the dead guys behaviors. They just have to sift through, find it, and confirm it.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: Peppers and august
So let me get this straight.

- man rages on social media about protestors
- man describes on social media the 'correct' way to shoot protestors
- man shows up armed at protest, ends up shooting protestor. Huh, that's weird and unexpected.
 
FWIW that tabloid didn't "reveal" anything and in fact got some facts backwards as far as who shot how many times and when, etc. And of course left out any facts that don't jive with their sensational clickbait and didn't source anything they did claim.

What did happen is the guys lawyer sent a statement to the local news station dutifully painting his client as being in the right and everyone grabbed it from there.

There is no credible, proven new info aside from the guys ID. Cops are still gathering and going through video and witness statements and probably will be for some time.

As I said in the other thread it'll hinge on whether the now dead guy really raised his rifle towards the car or not.

There's so many cameras downtown plus people with smartphones something that can't lie or be biased will have caught both the cars and the dead guys behaviors. They just have to sift through, find it, and confirm it.
even if the decedent did raise his weapon, it could be argued that the driver attacked with a deadly weapon first (the vehicle) and the decedent was the one who was raising a weapon in self defense. I believe you don't get to claim self defense when you are the one who initiated the deadly force in the first place.
 
So let me get this straight.

- man rages on social media about protestors
- man describes on social media the 'correct' way to shoot protestors
- man shows up armed at protest, ends up shooting protestor. Huh, that's weird and unexpected.
it will be some hotly contested litigation as to whether those posts are allowed into evidence in court (prejudicial vs probative). on a personal level, I think they absolutely go toward the mindset & intent, but I think in criminal trials, character evidence can only be entered by prosecution to directly rebut defense character evidence. in this case, I coul see defense possibly bringing up his military history to attempt to lean on that as good moral character, but it would open up prosecution to rebut with his posts, so they may not want to. idk. it's complicated and also to a degree at the whims of whoever is preciding (there's rules but the rules are interpreted differently in each case because they're not so much if A then B, A, so B, but more like if A then B, XYZ so ???)
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: HipHugHer
even if the decedent did raise his weapon, it could be argued that the driver attacked with a deadly weapon first (the vehicle) and the decedent was the one who was raising a weapon in self defense. I believe you don't get to claim self defense when you are the one who initiated the deadly force in the first place.

You can't if you initiated the confrontation/violent action/whatever.
It's why they'll be looking at the behavior of both the car and the rifle guy. Measuring video frames to determine acceleration, reaction time, etc. One of those deals that can come down to little seconds long snippets in time as to who a reasonable person would perceive as a grave threat and when, why, etc.
Driver may well be at fault. Or not. Or a toss up somewhere in between for lawyers to argue over.
Some camera or combination of cameras somewhere down there will have caught it.
 
  • Gravy
Reactions: august