Gromnir

the feds and prosecutors no doubt had people read navarro's... book. sure, insofar as court proceedings, most material from the book is hearsay unless it qualifies as an admission or some other limited exception, but if you are prosecuting navarro you would need read regardless to determine what scope o' privilege has pete already surrendered and as possible impeachment o' testimony material, 'cause proof o' a tendency to be untruthful is always admissible unless is too prejudicial. regardless, is a certainty multiple highly skilled professionals has been compelled to read navarro's book, which is a kinda crime in and of itself. HA! Good Fun!

am forced to admit the one cat impersonation we wouldn't be embarrassed by is originating from a most unlikely source: a former dallas cowboy. The Life & Legacy of FVSU Alum Rayfield Wright "Following the conclusion of his career, Wright prioritized giving back by raising money for college scholarships through the Rayfield Wright Foundation, helping to start a home for at-risk boys in East Texas, and supporting charities like the Make-A-Wish Foundation." HA! Good Fun!

but admit it, you would be ecstatic if he were pretending to be the sisko... maybe even quark. HA! Good Fun!

Navarro Seriously Cites His Jan. 6 Book Tour in Bid for Trial Delay in case you miss the funny... navarro is being prosecuted for contempt o' Congress in part 'cause o' his refusal to discuss with Congress issues and events 'bout which he had revealed to the public by means o' book he had published. curious, navarro is claiming privilege as the basis for his refusal to discuss, although the ex-President would be the individual with the privilege in spite o' fact the ex-President hasn't invoked privilege as to the matter... not that an ex-President has he capacity to invoke such privilege. regardless, is mind-blowing to claim privilege as a bar on testimony if you not only already made the subject matter public in a book, but you go before a judge and ask for a court delay so you might engage in a media tour to further promote and discuss the book. HA! Good Fun!

(not so) cute animal vid more cute HA! Good Fun!

in the US there is a direct correlation 'tween increases in education and lower incidence o' excessive force complaints for police. education is the best predictor o' lower excessive force complaints. not race. not sex. is correlation, but is nevertheless kinda compelling. however, as already mentioned, is already extreme difficult for law enforcement agencies to keep enough police officers employed. fix social issues and gun laws so we don't need as many police would be the ideal solution to the problem o' police staffing, but... HA! Good Fun!

a gross overgeneralization. what joe biden and bernie sanders has suggested is increasing funding (edit: sanders actual is against the increased funding aspect, but he does want police departments nationwide to have, "well-educated, well-trained, well-paid professionals," though as is usual with bernie, am not sure how he gets what he wants w/o more money) and developing programs which focus on de-escalation training as well as increasing mental health initiatives. both o' the aforementioned is animated and vociferous in their denials that they support defunding the police even though breitbart and fox continues to claim they is defund supporters. some folks who wanna defund the police do indeed wanna get rid o' or diminish cop presence. others simple wanna get rid o' cop use o' militarized equipment and fed subsidized training o' overt violence. there is no singular defund argument. try and sell the notion that defund the police isn't the stoopid suggestions all too many knee-jerk lefties offered up in the wake o' george floyd is a kinda gaslighting and is beneath hurl. tell us you endorse the joe biden and/or bernie sanders approach? fine. keep in mind they both claim they ain't defund supporters. HA! Good Fun!

cost and privacy issues preclude constant surveillance o' cops. not only that, but am thinking anybody who has seen wonky body cam footage realizes the body cams is nowhere near as effective as sometimes advertised. the cameras have a single viewing pov and as often as not whatever you were hoping to catch with the video is not revealed by the recording. have mentioned previous how there is near fourteen thousand different law enforcement departments/agencies in this country. most current law enforcement agencies can't even afford minimal body cam programs. have some kinda system which would record every second o' every work day and then provide storage for such recordings is a massive undertaking and would need be replicated fourteen thousand times. “The easy part is buying the body cameras and issuing them to the officers. They are not that expensive,” Jim Pasco, executive director at the National Fraternal Order of Police, told the Post. “But storing all the data that they collect — that cost is extraordinary. The smaller the department, the tougher it tends to be for them.” just ain't practical at this time. HA! Good Fun!

so, no real support for the liars accusation? a few anecdotal examples but nothing which would support the conclusion it is, "a good rule of thumb to assume cops are lying in general"? therefore, before we get too distracted, the recognition o' the hasty generalization and how you were doing exact same thing as bruce has not in any way been diminished, yes? *shrug* HA! Good Fun! ps maybe counts as spam, but am gonna repeat, again, how in spite o' fantasies 'bout what protect and serve means and the higher standard the public always wishes cops be held to, the Courts don't see any such duty or responsibilities. deshaney, catlerock v. gonzalez and warren v. dc all make it abundant clear that the public suffers from a serious disconnect regarding cop standards and duties, and considering how US communities keep lowering hiring requirements for cops and their pay is a whopping $55k per annum on average or thereabouts, expecting heroics sacrifice and honesty is not particular realistic. in spite o' what the public imagines is the higher standard for cops, no such standard exists and in point o' fact cops don't owe any duty to individual citizens for aid or defense regardless o' obvious distress.

Guillermo Del Toro Presents First Look at ‘Pinocchio’ HA! Good Fun!

we cannot speak to kanada, but you are preaching to the choir if you wanna criticize cop violence as delivered by law enforcement in the US. edit: avoiding the double, but is unrelated to cops and lies. ff to 1:29ish if you want the meat *chuckle* somebody sure seemed to think eastman's plan, which were being advanced by numerous wh personages, were gonna be resulting in criminal prosecutions. HA! Good Fun!

am not sure about the justification for expecting better. 'cause o' their extra training? 'cause o' their high pay? why? regardless, expecting better already undercuts the initial premise, no? gonna also observe police mistake is frequent conflated with police untrustworthiness. Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on Eyewitness Accounts "In one well-known study, Loftus and her colleague Jacqueline Pickrell gave subjects written accounts of four events, three of which they had actually experienced. The fourth story was fiction; it centered on the subject being lost in a mall or another public place when he or she was between four and six years old. A relative provided realistic details for the false story, such as a description of the mall at which the subject’s parents shopped. After reading each story, subjects were asked to write down what else they remembered about the incident or to indicate that they did not remember it at all. Remarkably about one third of the subjects reported partially or fully remembering the false event. In two follow-up interviews, 25 percent still claimed that they remembered the untrue story, a figure consistent with the findings of similar studies." the problem with a few stats about police inaccuracy is the fact all witnesses is horrible untrustworthy and not necessarily 'cause o' self interest or ill-intent. inevitable any police situation which garners media attention as well as most police encounters which end up in court is gonna include a high pressure situation. eye witness accounts o' such events should always be deemed less than perfect reliable. mistake is common if not the norm. get wrong is not necessarily matter o' police being especial prone to lies. repeat: fbi stats have personal seen any numbers o' studies showing dozens o' verified police inaccurate statements for such n' such department over years and decades. but again please recognize the real numbers involved. gonna average tens of millions of arrests in a single year and near five hundred thousand for violent crimes. if you found no liars, or near none we could only explain as coverup. *chuckle* also, keep in mind cops is having one o' the handful o' professions where the lies is actual tracked via public records. am recalling our high school years and the number o' times we caught teachers and coaches making stoopid lies. we worked as a ranch hand/cowboy from almost the time we could ride, and is possible no other job we has ever had which attracted so many fabulists, but we chalked that up in part to the alcoholism and broken marriages. we had clients who we explained they had protected confidentiality with US which were more iron clad than what they had with their spouse or priest and we nevertheless had clients lie to us all the time; these folks would literal lie to us when doing so could only hurt their legal efforts and they did anyway, and such were common. have heard thousands o' lies from liars over the years. tell us cops is preternatural subject to lies when they is one o' the few professions wherein doing so has actual oversight crafted into the system, if flawed, makes little logical sense. HA! Good Fun! ps forgot to mention the psych eval and polygraph which is prerequisites for many law enforcement jobs. sure, those is crude tools (although polygraphs is much better than many people realize) but they do weed out more than a few applicants. such pre-employment checks is a reason to expect truthfulness is actual more common 'mongst law enforcement as 'posed to less.

sure, lets' start with the hasty generalization and the failure to offer any support other than feels. keep in mind, in the US alone there were 10 million arrests made in 2019 'ccording to less than perfect fbi data. near 500k o' those arrests were for violent crimes. 'ccording to not fbi sources, is 'bout 700k personnel employed in US as law enforcement. golly. if we are going anecdotal, is not difficult for us to name more than a few occasions from this board wherein posters reached conclusions 'bout law enforcement malfeasance way before any real info were known and in more than a few such cases the s'posed police wrongdoing were revealed to be not what were being claimed. got stats to back up the i find and i think stuff... something other than gut level confirmation bias? HA! Good Fun! ps in absence o' stats or academic studies regarding the unique untrustworthiness o' police, we would be willing to at least consider the logical specious but nevertheless persuasive offering o' years o' personal experience gleaned working close with law enforcement.

you folks are doing the same thing o' which you deride bruce and am suspecting you don't see the hypocrisy or inexplicable believe is different. HA! Good Fun!

GOP commission refuses to certify New Mexico primary vote New Mexico’s secretary of state on Tuesday asked the state Supreme Court to order the Republican-led commission of rural Otero County to certify primary election results after it refused to do so over distrust of Dominion vote-tallying machines. ... january 6 was so not the end of the insanity. HA! Good Fun!

"If you look at the people that have been arrested for that, by and large, I mean, it's the boogaloo movement or it's an association with QAnon. It's the right side of the spectrum. It is not antifa." She's unequivocal about this: "The threat of domestic terrorism is not from antifa. It is from these right-wing movements." am not sure how many times the but what about blm and antifa people need be reminded it ain't those organizations which pose a significant ongoing threat to americans or american democracy. when was the last s'posed blm led riot btw? once fed troops pulled out of portland, what happened to the protests in that and similar cities? yeah, the next time a minority dies in an altercation with police there will be more than a few people who instant call for reciprocal violence instead o' keeping their protests genuine peaceful, but in spite o' breitbart and fox news lurid images, most summer protests were (summers o' a few years past btw) peaceful... which is precise why fox got caught doctoring riot imagery and pasting in violence from earlier protests and even spain to give the weak-kneed pearl clutchers "proof" o' minority violence. Champaign Man Sentenced for Inciting Riot four years in prison and $1.5 million dollars for a facebook post. is not as if mr. betts were the only protester arrested and eventual punished by the courts, though admitted most state punishments for rioting specific and the like is kinda light and is often difficult to prove who exact were responsible for a burned down big-o tire store which were destroyed during the chaos o' a riot. summer protests were not quite having the plethora o' security cameras and visibility o' a daylight riot at the Capitol, eh? regardless lib and progressive Congressmen, as well as kamala harris who with her tough-on-crime resume don't check the lib or progressive boxes, got themselves in hot water for making donations to defense funds for those arrested during the protests precise 'cause so many people were arrested and eventual charged with crimes. nevertheless we see the same people trying to rehabilitate the same stoopid without even bothering to come up with a new angle. ain't worth the effort but we sympathize with gorth 'cause am also reflexive condemning the inanity, which is why we added numerous folks to ignore. unfortunate the ignore is not foolproof as we nevertheless see quotable and a few o' the worst purveyors o' stoopid is your fellow mods who are not subject to the ignore feature. so it goes. HA! Good Fun!

old joke: what do you say to a drummer in a three-piece suit? even so, am not trusting the ginger gnome with the bagpipes neither. HA! Good Fun!

sharing 'cause is that time of year... again. Table of State Laws that Protect Animals Left in Parked Vehicles 14 states have enacted laws that allow any person to rescue a distressed animal (AZ, CA, CO, CT, FL, IN, KS, LA, MA, OH, OR, TN, VT, and WI). These laws functions to limit the civil or criminal liability of the person for damages resulting from the forcible entry of the vehicle. Indiana is the first and only state to require the person who forcibly enters a vehicle to rescue an animal to pay half the damages. West Virginia and New Jersey are the only states that criminalize the act of leaving a pet unattended under dangerous conditions without providing a rescue and immunity provision for anyone. check the link if you are curious, 'cause most states which provide protection from criminal and civil liability impose specific requirements for the prospective good samaritan. CA as an example: This person will not be criminally liable for actions taken reasonably and in good faith if the person does all of the following: -determines the vehicle is locked or there is otherwise no reasonable manner for the animal to be removed from the vehicle -has a good faith belief that forcible entry into the vehicle is necessary because the animal is in imminent danger of suffering harm -contacted a local law enforcement agency, the fire department, animal control, or 911 prior to forcible entry -remains with the animal in a safe location, but close by until emergency responders arrive -used no more force than necessary to enter the vehicle and remove the animal -immediately turns the animal over to a representative from law enforcement, animal control, or another emergency responder HA! Good Fun!

This traffic stop between a Black man and a White state trooper began with fear. It ended with a surprising act of kindness not sure if it qualifies as good news, but is close enough. HA! Good Fun!

HA! Good Fun!

possible the most fascinating aspect o' knorozov's translation efforts is that it likely were only possible 'cause o' the academic isolation o' the soviet union. for all intents and purposes, the book on the mayan language had been written, and the world's most respected academics had come to agreement that mayan were a pictograph language with each symbol representing a word or concept. there were a brit scholar (thomas? thompsen?) who were THE guy regarding the mayans and his conclusions and process were taught to all other western linguists. an academic dead-end were created by THE guy being wrong. soviet scholars didn't have the slavish devotion to thomas/thompsen and they didn't risk humiliation or loss o' tenure by publishing works with contradictory conclusions. am not certain what yuri's exposure to contemporary western scholarship amounted to, but were almost happenstance yuri's groundbreaking efforts were known in the west before the end o' the cold war, 'cause for the most part soviet academic publications were not translated and promoted beyond the iron curtain in the 1950s. that said, am thinking the quirky cat co-author stuff is a bit more amusing and likely more memorable. HA! Good Fun!

The rise of youth cage-fighting 'couldn't help but think o' the line from highlander. "the kurgans were an ancient people from the steppes of russia. for amusement they tossed children into pits with hungry dogs to fight for meat." back in the 70s our grandmother had to be convinced to let us join youth wrestling. am trying to imagine her reaction to cage fighting. HA! Good Fun!

not accurate. am sympathetic to elie's pov and we already noted how the Court opinion represented an implausibly narrow reading o' bivens, and were improbable dismissive o' ziglar, but am suspecting the wailing and face rending some is promoting with this thomas opinion (whom as you by now are likely aware we got an an increasingly jaded view) is only possible 'cause folks like ellie realize his audience don't know what is the 4th amendment and they are even less likely to be aware o' sovereign immunity. "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." w/o embracing a wholly unsupported parade of horrible and as current read, the thomas opinion says that if you have property on the border with mexico or canada, and if fed agents violate your fourth amendment rights, you cannot sue the feds for money damages. sure, you will have your papers and other illegal seized property returned, and most important, evidence gathered in violation o' the 4th amendment breach cannot be used against you in a criminal proceeding, but the feds cannot be sued for their negligent and even reckless behaviors, 'cause in most cases the feds cannot be sued for negligence unless Congress passes a law to such an effect. sovereign immunity, like it or not, is the common law norm going back before the US were a thing, and sans some kinda legislation changing, or a case such as bivens, you don't get money when the government screws the pooch. the victim in the present case were the owner o' an inn on the border with canada who legit interfered with a border patrol agent s'posed pursuing a suspect. the inn owner complained to the US government 'bout being roughed up (he was thrown to the ground) by the border patrol agent and in response the a-hole agent sicks the irs on the inn owner. the irs found no wrongdoing by the inn owner, but the plaintiff had to hire an accountant and pay him $5000 to deal with the irs audit. inn owner wanted the government to pay his $5000... and if the inn owner had won, his lawyer fees woulda' been paid. btw, the a-hole agent were fired as a result o' the inn owner's complaint. look, am agreeing the case is representing a wrong, but is not the wrong as described. is not making so victims 'o 4th amendment violations have no recourse. the case in question does not eliminate the vast majority o' 4th amendment claims one is gonna seek to make v. the government; you can get your stuff back and you won't have illegal seized evidence used against you. unfortunate, sovereign immunity is kinda the status quo and state and fed need enumerate the exceptions if you wanna sue for money damages. HA! Good Fun!

hmmm. kinda a misleading read. this case is 'bout suing feds for torts committed during scope o' their duties. facts o' the case involved a property literal straddling the border which were noteworthy for the majority as it raised (specious in our opinion given the facts) national security issues. could the courts somehow read the opinion so it applies to any 4th amendment TORT claims made in the 100 mile zone? maybe. is a perilously slippery slope being conjured, but am admitted discouraged by the curiously extreme narrow reading o' bivens and the hand wave to ziglar by the majority. regardless, the referenced decision is offering no implied freedom to violate the 4th amendment save to note the monetary damages one may recover for such violations as set forth in bivens has been seriously limited. HA! Good Fun!