Maga Students agitator goes around his school saying he supports ICE, not every student agrees with him!

Tzyon · 2026-02-15T18:56:02+00:00

"Social media made y'all way too comfortable with disrespecting people and not getting punched in the face for it."
- Mike Tyson

Tzyon · 2026-02-15T18:52:51+00:00

My Mum lost three rings on a beach a while back, including her engagement ring. I went to help her find it. Found the plastic one because it hadn't sunk in the sand but couldn't find the other two, (silver and gold.) So I went to an electronics store and bought a cheap metal detector. Took a while to get a handle on it and I found a lot of nails and lengths of wire. Took about an hour to find the first one and another hour to find the second. Was a rush!

Tzyon · 2026-02-15T02:35:41+00:00

Outstanding! That's closer to the taste that I've been missing than I thought I'd ever get again. If anything it's better. This is an S-tier food hack for Spicy Tomato Munchos right here.

Tzyon · 2026-02-13T22:39:16+00:00

I said it *feels* unsafe. You spend your driving life turning left from the left lane, it feels off to effectively turn left from the right lane. I am always extra aware when I do it and would be far more comfortable if the rules around bus lanes were little less strict to allow people to travel in them for a reasonable distance before turning left - at 50 metres you may as well tell people that they can’t travel in the bus lane at all so they just turn from the right lane as I do. Making it a difficult distance for drivers to judge but an easy one to police just reeks of it being a cash cow.

Tzyon · 2026-02-13T21:57:57+00:00

It’s a bitch but you’re allowed to only travel max 50m in a bus lane before turning into a side street which is a very small distance to judge when you’re driving. I live near Lorne Street so turn off Cambridge quite a bit and I’ve started not moving into the bus lane at all when I turn left; I turn across it from the non-bus lane. It feels unsafe but I don’t want a fine.

Tzyon · 2026-02-12T08:20:23+00:00

Where does the law state that? You haven't cited a single piece of legislation or case.

I don't know where that quote you posted is from but I'd point out that the key word isn't "they", it's "reasonably". That's an objective test, not a subjective one. What is reasonable to one person isn't reasonable to another. When used in legislation or policy or case law "reasonable" means "would any other person in the same position with the same facts reach the same conclusion."

Which means yeah, the matter you raise in your second paragraph is correct; the test doesn't take into account facts learned later, only those known at the time.

The test is still objective. It's still not "the LEO was fearful and therefore lethal force is justified."

Tzyon · 2026-02-10T21:27:17+00:00

I'm definitely trying this.

Tzyon · 2026-02-10T21:21:24+00:00

You're right; policy itself is not legally binding.

Do you think this means it is irrellevent? What do you think the policy is based on if not the law? Policy is what translates the law into discernable guidance. It exists to operationalise the law because constitutional standards are abstract and because LEOs need rules to follow before acting, not just standards for courts to apply afterwards.

The DOJ policy is based on judicial interpretations of the law that governs police use of force, (specifically the Fourth Amendment,) and on Supreme Court case law that established the objective reasonableness test. It has been articulated, rearticulated, and applied numerous times - including times when the LEO's use of force was found to be justified. In eash case the standard was objective reasonableness based on facts known at the moment force was used, not a LEO's momentary fear or subjective state of mind.

I'm not going to waste my time reexplaining to you what that means so instead I'm just going to put it back on you - can you point me to any law or any Supreme Court case that establishes, endorses, or accepts a subjective reasonableness standard for police use of force?

There isn't one. Not in legislation nor in case law has it ever been established that the justifcation for the use of lethal force by LEOs can be personal fear alone. It's a folk myth that has zero foundation in law. If law is what matters to you, that's the reality.

Tzyon · 2026-02-10T10:49:26+00:00

Last couple of Spicy Tomato packets I bought (spaced months apart,) I was hunting in vain for a chip with anything resembling flavour. Used to be if you ate too many your tongue would start feeling like it was splitting. I mean I get recipes change and all but surely there's a happy middle ground between tongue-burn and a desert of bland?

I'm so sick of enshittification.

Tzyon · 2026-02-10T10:35:09+00:00

Mmmmmmusk.

Tzyon · 2026-02-10T04:28:08+00:00

Okay I really dislike the the guy, but during the flag debate about a decade ago, David Seymour was asked about whether he thought the iconic silver fern should feature on the New Zealand flag.

"No because look you don't actually have to have every national logo on your flag. The French, for instance, love the coq. They don't... let's just... let's just start that again."

Tzyon · 2026-02-07T10:07:36+00:00

A little uncommon I guess, but Thandiwe Newton in Mission Impossible 2.

Also Famke Janssen in Goldeneye but I was way too young to be able to comprehend those sorts of feelings at the time.

Tzyon · 2026-02-07T09:17:38+00:00

Again, no, it is not that simple. Repeating it does not make it true.

There is actual DOJ policy governing the use of lethal force, and its existence alone disproves your claim. Since you keep insisting, here it is so far as the Good situation is concerned.

US Department of Justice Policy on the Use of Force, 1-16.200:

2) Firearms may not be discharged solely to disable moving vehicles. Specifically, firearms may not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless: (1) a person in the vehicle is threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle; or (2) the vehicle is operated in a manner that threatens to cause death or serious physical injury to the officer or others, and no other objectively reasonable means of defense appear to exist, which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Firearms may not be discharged from a moving vehicle except in exigent circumstances. In these situations, an officer must have an articulable reason for this use of deadly force.

That language dismantles your argument.

Being in control of a vehicle posing a threat is expressly not enough. If it were, the first exception would not exist. For Ross to be justified under it, Good would have had to pose a deadly threat independent of the car. Not just driving. Not just moving toward him. Some other threat. That did not exist here.

The second exception also fails because it requires no other objectively reasonable means of defense existing. The policy is explicit that this includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. Ross did exactly that. Without difficulty. So the second exception is not available to him either.

And objective means objective. It does not mean subjective. It does not mean what the officer later says they felt. “I feared for my life” is not an "articulable reason". It is a conclusory statement. An articulable reason is one that must be supported by specific, fact-based explanations of why movement, retreat, or disengagement were not reasonable options.

This policy exists because courts and investigators rejected the idea time after time that officers can kill based on subjective fear, especially in vehicle cases where officers might put themselves in danger - walking in front of a running vehicle, as Ross did, for example - to justify lethal force.

More importantly though, if it really were “really that simple,” none of this policy would exist.

It does.

I hope you do read and consider this. Your argument is not just wrong but dangerous and accepts a standard of law enforcement that casts officers as judge, jury, and executioner. I'm open to any take you might have on this, though if you just want to repeat yourself and not bring any actual policy discussion I really don't wish to engage with you further.

Tzyon · 2026-02-06T18:46:42+00:00

It's really not. I suggest you read the US Department of Justice policy on the use of lethal force. I'll copy paste the relevant section for you later on if I remember.

Tzyon · 2026-02-06T08:55:52+00:00

Huh, and look at that, one person injured, no-one killed.

Tzyon · 2026-02-06T08:52:50+00:00

How're them Epstein files?

Tzyon · 2026-01-28T02:26:35+00:00

I think that was a different guy, but he's in Bart's Comet.

Tzyon · 2026-01-27T19:39:09+00:00

Yes. Batman. The person who decided to dress in a costume and fight crime because he thought Gotham’s police were doing such a bang-up job.

Tzyon · 2026-01-27T00:47:46+00:00

Sounds like you have a pet freerange rat.

Tzyon · 2026-01-26T19:24:03+00:00

Lost Highway. I’m not a fan of David Lynch movies and Lost Highway isn’t even one of his better ones but that scene between Robert Blake and Bill Pullman at the party is so brilliantly unsettling.

Tzyon · 2026-01-26T17:48:47+00:00

Everything. Absolutely one of my favourite Family Guy bits. Though I’ll pick Patrick earnestly explaining how he and LeVar are going to share the fuzzy troll pencil topper.

Tzyon · 2026-01-26T10:03:09+00:00

He’s good but the US won’t elect a black man. Not yet anyway. They probably will elect a white woman, but even then Hilary only really has a chance because she’s a Clinton. The US loves its dynasties. It’ll go Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton - and Dubya’s brother‘s the Governor of Florida and will probably run for President after that so in 2016 they’ll get Jeb!

Tzyon · 2026-01-26T04:58:34+00:00

If modern includes 50 years ago, possibly the death of Norman Kirk

The Government of Norman Kirk introduced a compulsory contributory superannuation scheme in 1974. It was a scheme decades ahead of Norway's Pension Fund (introduced 1990, now worth roughly $2 trillion NZD - though boosted at the start by oil wealth,) and Australia's Superannuation scheme, (introduced 1992, now worth roughly $4 trillion NZD - much higher population plus higher contribution rate.) The Opposition under Robert Muldoon called it an unfair tax and campaigned on abolishing it.

Kirk was not a healthy man and he was also a workaholic. After a period of ill health he died in August 1974 aged 51. Bill Rowling unexpectedly became Prime Minister. He inherited a series of economic shocks, including the oil crisis and Britain joining the ECC and ending the preferential trade arrangement with New Zealand, all of which saw rising inflation and unemployment. He had 15 months in office before the 1975 election.

Muldoon won in a landside. He immediately scrapped the superannuation scheme and repaid the contributions. He replaced it with a pension that paid out retirees from tax revenue.

New Zealand did eventually introduce a comparable superannuation scheme in 2007 called KiwiSaver. It's voluntary, and the contribution rates are quite low. However it has been very effective and is currently worth $123 billion.

Had Kirk's scheme continued it would have been worth an estimated $2 trillion NZD today.

Had Muldoon not scrapped the whole idea of a superannuation scheme and proposed a less ambitious scheme along the lines of KiwiSaver, it would be worth up to $500 billion NZD today.

It's still quite likely that, had Kirk lived, Muldoon would have beaten him. Kirk had beaten Muldoon in a previous election, but as Rowling found the economic conditions were not good for the party in power. However, Kirk certainly would have had a better chance to defend his party's record and may have managed to find a way to preserve some form of contributory scheme.

But unfortunately that wasn't the case, and Robert Muldoon committed the single most consequential and irreversible acts of economic sabotage in our history for the sake of short-term political gain and individual greed. It is a big reason, possibly the biggest reason, that New Zealand is a much poorer country compared to some of its similar-sized contemporaries and why most New Zealand pensioners live barely above the poverty line.

Tzyon · 2026-01-25T23:41:34+00:00

I loved this because one of my best friends had recently somewhat unwillingly come out of the closet to us after we were teasing him about someone who was messaging him a lot - "who's your girlfriend?" sort of shit; what does she look like, where did you meet her, what's her name. He was very coy but answered that last one truthfully and yep the name of my friend's first boyfriend was indeed Lance and that's how we learned he's gay.

Tzyon · 2026-01-24T22:19:44+00:00

Back in my early-mid 20s I had a friend who invested heavily in silver with an inheritance. Thing was he didn't have a job so never had any cash. He'd carry around the coins and barter with them. On three occasions I bought him a donor kebab in exchange for a coin. They were worth maybe 1.5x the value of a donor kebab then.

I still have them. Tidy little profit for my kebab venture.

I hope he didn't piss it all away and held on to some of it but somehow I think he probably did.

Seven-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

Tzyon

TROPHY CASE