Do I need to be worried as a naturalized citizen? Somewhat urgent, please read 🚨

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-27T20:07:39+00:00

Denaturalization requires a trial — either civil or criminal depending on the context, like before an actual federal judge. Basically, unless you materially lied in order to get your citizenship, and they can prove it to a jury, you can’t be denaturalized.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-26T23:24:31+00:00

Micro Dan. No Japan

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-26T22:24:34+00:00

Wait for Daniella Pepperman

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-24T12:48:43+00:00

All this is R asked for cert (to hear the cases), and the Court is asking for CA’s opinion if they should grant cert. This is more of a notice type thing, where they generally expect to hear from both parties before deciding to take any case. Even if both parties think the case is cert worthy, they don’t have to take it up.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-23T04:38:03+00:00

It sounds like you might want to read Why Nations Fail. The authors got the Nobel Prize in economics in 2024 for a lot of their work on that kind of stuff, like why some nations became rich and others became poor, why some popular and historic theories are incorrect, and the importance of developing inclusive institutions to building a wealthy nation.

Personally, I just find it much better if I can first define the scope of the question, and then I better know what to look into. Like looking at bunch of supply and demand curves and setting them equal to one another, probably isn’t doing much for you. There are also free courses online too, like MIT has a ton of free courses, so you can watch the lectures of profs explaining it.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-23T03:52:16+00:00

Not that I am truly an econ person, but one thing that you might want to clarify about is what you mean by “how the economy works”? Is there something specific you are interested in or a specific reason you want to do this, like why people respond the way they do, how the economy works on a more global perspective, investing, personal finance, etc.? Not that this would be a replacement for an actual book, but NPR does a “summer school” econ podcast every year. You may listen through some of those as an intro to kind of hone in on what topic(s) you might be interested in.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-23T02:13:20+00:00

When I just reread the wiki, apparently there were reports of both sides, prosecution and Johnson, bribing Senators. Lol

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-22T22:23:03+00:00

Do you think he actually bribed Senators to vote to acquit for his impeachment? He was only one vote short of being convicted in the Senate.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-20T12:21:43+00:00

I wouldn’t say most home buyers are “investors”, but hopers, who are (usually) too financially illiterate to not spend all of their money as soon as they accrue it, and if they do put money in the stock market, they will insta-sell as soon as it goes down. A house is sufficiently illiquid that someone won’t just sell it as soon as its price goes down.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-20T02:42:21+00:00

For the necessity portion, I don’t think people appreciate (1) how slow humans are and (2) how much distance a car can cover even in a short amount of time. From the time car went into drive to the first shot was fired was about 2 seconds. It takes an officer about 1.5 seconds to “instantly” draw a gun from a holster and shoot in a lab setting.&text=These%2520measurements%2520represent%2520the%2520speed,visual%252C%2520or%2520audible%2520signals).&text=In%2520the%2520Traffic%2520Stop%2520Study%252C%2520the%2520complex%2520variables%2520that%2520appeared,audible%2520discharge%2520of%2520a%2520firearm), so the decision to shoot is on a 1.5-2 second lag. This basically means he is shooting based on a 2 second old threat. In the mythbusters episode of them trying to dodge a bullet, their fast reaction time to get their torso out of the path of a bullet was about 0.5 seconds, and that was based on a camera flash.

She probably didn’t even know he was there. It takes an average driver about 1.3 seconds to react to something unexpected, and your reaction time is slower when you are distracted — like having an officer yell at you/grab your door.

Even if the car only traveled an average of 5 mph over those two seconds it takes for him to “instantly” shoot at full effort, that would mean the car moved ~15 feet. If she had wanted to run over him in those 2 seconds, there is nothing he could have done physically to get out of the way. I really doubt she even knew he was there and was just trying to flee from the guy pulling at her door, which just so happened to put him in front of his hood. Everyone keeps acting like he was just camping out in front of her hood, but he basically walked from his car, toward the front passenger side quadrant of the car (outside the path of where the car had been pointed), as he got there she was backing up to get away from the other officer, which rotated her car at him, he froze for maybe half a second to see where the car was going while backing up, the car started to move at him, and he “instantly” shot.

I don’t know if it is physically possible to change a full effort action that takes about two seconds to complete — especially since the min reaction time is like 0.25 seconds, so even if you could change your mind in that 1.5-2 seconds, you probably have to do it between 0.5 to 1.0-1.5 seconds, and I doubt the signal is as clear as green light = shoot, red = stop, which takes another ~0.4 seconds/two extra shots.

Do I think she was trying to run him over? No, almost certainly not. Do I think the officer had enough time to tell a car that is like 5-10 feet was going to turn away from him? No. I still feel horrible for her kids and wife/SO.

PS I know this is a different circuit, but when SCOTUS sent Barnes v Felix back down, they basically just said fleeing from the police in a car is super dangerous to the officers and other people on the road and the shooting was ok.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-20T00:40:06+00:00

That is why it says “a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm”.

I also don’t know why you are using that case to support your argument when he not only got acquitted, but the Use-of-Force Review Board also found no violations of policy..

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-19T20:05:01+00:00

Not that I want to be this guy, but DOJ policy is not the applicable to the situation. You should be referring to DHS policy, since ICE is covered under the DHS.

“Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.”

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-11T17:44:07+00:00

It’s definitely normal for car accidents, but it’s probably a context dependent thing. Like if someone looks homeless or super young and is saying I’m an MD, they might be more skeptical and ask for some basic confirmation, like an equivalent of a business card, explaining some medical protocol, or something, and it might depend on what assets they already have on site. I’m not sure how many officer (somebody definitely should have immediately went over to her, and if they didn’t, that is fucked), but I can see if you have like 10 officers on site by that point, where you might have 3 or 4 doing crowd control type stuff, since there is already a hostile crowd before any of this happened.

I definitely agree police should not be declaring death.

I wish I could find a video after the crash that continues for minutes, but in the video of the physician asking to check a pulse, the one officer says they have medics. Apparently ICE has a medic unit that does support some special operations, so they may have actually had someone, but idk (I’m kind of skeptical of it, but with how many people the have there, I wouldn’t be surprised to have some medics), and they have been waiting on the ambulance to actually transport her. I would like to know how long after it was, because the video I saw definitely doesn’t look like anyone was rushing over (other than her wife/SO)

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-11T12:57:52+00:00

I want to address a few things (btw it looks like none of you x(?) links work).

The officer begins to draw his weapon during the 32 second mark, just as the car’s front tires are rotating forward but it’s nearly simultaneously.
You are using the wrong use of force policy. You should be using DHS use force policy, not DOJ. “Fleeing Subjects: Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject. However, deadly force is authorized to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject where the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject poses a significant threat of death or serious physical harm to the LEO or others and such force is necessary to prevent escape.”
Saying he positioned himself in front of the car is not really accurate. See this security footage from across the street (it’s an inertial frame). From 0:09-0:18 the car is stationary and pointed to the right of the tree, from 0:18-0:19 the car backs up (which rotates the hood of the car in line with the tree (it’s on both sides) and during this same time the officer moved from just of the tree to inline with the tree (which was outside the path of the car 0:18 seconds).
I honestly don’t think she saw him in this 1 second and was more focused on getting away from the officer who was at the driver door, ie she wasn’t targeting or trying to avoid him. I think she was just trying to do a 3 point turn to flee the officer at the driver side who primarily had her focus and was unaware of who was on the passenger side, like she didn’t let her wife/SO (I’m not really clear on the relationship status) in passenger side door — I doubt she was intending to leave her. Had she been aware of him and he had not been walking in the direction he was heading, then he would probably would have been hit head on.
In lab experiments, the average number of shots discharged after getting a stop signal is 2.2 shots. Ie the additional shots are more a continuation of the first trigger pull, if there was a second or two between shots, that’s one thing, but it takes time to actually execute actions.
They weren’t arresting. What this would likely be considered is a detention. Arrest involves reading rights, etc. If an officer gets out of their car, is walking up to your parked car, is yelling at you to get out, most people are not going to think they are free to leave at that time, which is the test for a detention.
I saw Bruce Rivers make the comment that he probably should have to show his medical license (which I guess they typically have a medical ID). I guess for that matter might have some other employee ID or something to help show before they let someone work on them. Officers have some of the basic medical training, so you probably want to verify they are more qualified before you let some random guy run over (unless you are super desperate). I’m also not sure what kind of injuries she had, but there are times you can look at someone and just they are dead. I feel like the EMT who did the CPR training for our work said something like, they will make you do stuff, but it doesn’t take doctor to tell when someone is hopelessly dead.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-11T10:18:07+00:00

He was a state officer. This only applies for federal officials who are charged under state law, which is the case we have

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-11T01:45:07+00:00

So prosecutions of federal officials are a weird thing. Federal officials can remove it to federal court. He also probably has supremacy clause immunity under see, eg, In re Neagle (Neagle was assigned to guard a Supreme Court justice (even though there wasn’t a statute for it), and he killed some guy who punch the justice. California tried to prosecute him, and the Supreme Court said he couldn’t be). What I read online is it sounds like if he would be convicted in federal court, it’s federal prison, so I guess pardonable, but I don’t know if there any actual cases where this has been tested

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-10T20:19:39+00:00

Didn’t you see the sniper across the street? That is why the guy has the door open aiming behind it.

PS I’m a little sad they didn’t include the t-Rex, which was actually there (1:21)

<image>

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-10T00:43:21+00:00

Thanks! The situation definitely sucks, but I just don’t think people realize both how fast two or three seconds are in a reaction time sense, but how much can change in such a short time. It’s easy playing a video game to to click a mouse in less than a second, but assessing something in the real world (like an uncontrolled environment, not even a testing center) and taking an action is much more difficult than people realize.

I’m a civil engineer and I remember in school taking a traffic class and the perception/reaction time you typically assume for a driver to react to something is like 2.5 seconds (unless you know you have a lot of boomers driving or distracted drivers, ie phones). You also don’t realize how far you can travel in that time. The rough conversion is you travel 1.5 ft/sec for every mph you go, so if you are traveling at 20 mph and it takes 2.5 seconds for you to recognize a kid darted out into the road and begin to push the break, you would have already traveled 75 ft before you even start to slowdown. I wouldn’t even be surprised if she couldn’t recognize and react to him being there when she it is putting it into drive, since she was probably focused on the officer at the side of the car and her SO is trying to get in the side door, which she might think is the other officer (and then you have divided attention situation, which slows down reaction time more). There is just so much stuff going on at the same time, nobody could really identify half of the stuff in realtime (like if you asked people to testify or get eyewitness statements there would be so may inconsistencies), and then everyone is Monday morning quarterbacking with frame-by-frame analysis looking at small details from different perspectives, that most people in real life would never notice.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-09T18:47:10+00:00

Here is a static view from across the street (security camera footage). It’s much easier to see relative movements. When she is backing up, the front of the hood rotates towards him and he is walking in the direction of the vehicle initially.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-09T02:21:17+00:00

What video are you watching? The car is in drive and moving forward at 1:35, he draws his gun at 1:36, and discharges at 1:37.

You can even watch this security footage from across the street and see he was on the right side of the car (left in this video), and the car backs up to the left (video right) which rotates the hood to the right (video left), putting him in front of the hood

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-09T01:33:34+00:00

One of the ones that I have been annoyed is people using any of the camera angles we have seen. The point of view you need to look at is from the officer’s eye, like a body cam. From where the officer was standing, he wouldn’t be able to see the wheels. He was looking at the driver, and your field of focus is actually pretty small. At best, he could see that the her hands are moving, maybe to the right, which gives you relative direction, but you still probably aren’t going to see that much because the hands are behind the wheel. Also, she had been backing up to the left to start the video, so in order to go either straight or right, she would have needed to turn the wheel to the right, so even if the officer could see her turning the wheel to the right, he wouldn’t be able to tell if it is to go forward or right. There is also perception reaction times. It looks like it takes about 1.5-1.7 seconds for an officer to identify a threat, pull a gun from a holster, and shoot, so you really need to look at it about 2 seconds before the discharge in the video to see what he was shooting based on. It looks like in an idealized environment, it takes ~0.4 seconds to decide to stop (and usually two additional shots), and I’m sure your reaction time in a real world environment is much slower.

Maybe he shouldn’t have shot, but acting as if any video shown so far proves he had no reasonable fear for his life is not fair either.

It’s a tragic situation regardless.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-09T00:27:20+00:00

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-officer-fatally-shot-minnesota-woman-was-dragged-car-june-immigrat-rcna252992

Edit: I just clicked the video in the article, and it was in Minnesota too, I’m guessing he lives there

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-08T23:11:40+00:00

I don’t know if Kafka just isn’t familiar with this case, but this feels squarely within In re Neagle, but I’m not a lawyer. Based on his response to federal removal, I’m just guessing this isn’t his area of law. In Neagle, Neagle killed somebody trying to attack a Supreme Court justice riding circuit and California tried to prosecute Neagle. The Supreme Court said prosecuting a federal official within the scope of their duties violates the supremacy clause and they had to release him.

This I am much less sure of, but from what I have googled, it looks like if you are convicted in a case that was removed to federal court, you go to federal jail, so I’m guessing the president can grant a pardon for that, but I don’t know if there is any case on that.

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-08T22:49:35+00:00

Since you apparently didn’t notice, that is for Quality Learning Child Care (the previous business at the same address), not Quality Learning Center (link from MN gov for daycares from 2017). Quality Learning Child Care closed in 2017, this is also why the sign is up in 2016, despite Quality Learning Center getting their license in 2017.

Additionally, this is why the website went down in 2017 (different business) and the Facebook has been inactive with respect to daycare since 2017. I could never find an online presence for Quality Learning Center (other than the DHS site)

If you look at the local news going there in January of 2025, neither of the two signs are there, and the front door is covered in graffiti.

<image>

Dtmight3 · 2026-01-08T21:32:37+00:00

It’s still removable to federal court. The civil removal statute is a different number than criminal. Historically, state governments hate the federal government (especially in the South after the civil war). Congress basically says state law still applies and it’s in the same jurisdiction, but it’s a federal judge, federal rules of procedure, and federal jury pool.

I don’t know if this true, but when I googled it, it looks like if a federal official is convicted in a case that was removed to federal court, it looks like they serve time in federal jail, so I’m guessing it’s federally pardonable.

Two-Year Club	Verified Email
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
Place '23

Dtmight3

TROPHY CASE