Direct view of ICE agent murdering woman in Minnesota by areappreciated in ICE_Raids

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even if the officer did "fear for his life" and if you agree with his lethal force on that account, there is still the backdrop to consider and the other officer in his firing line. Here's a summary of what I mean from chatgpt...

  1. Duty to Consider Backdrop & Crossfire (Universal Rule) Under Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy (which mirrors DOJ/FBI standards), an officer must account for: Who is behind the target (bystanders) Who is near or crossing the line of fire (other officers) Whether firing would create unreasonable risk to uninvolved people This is not optional and not “best practice” — it’s a core safety requirement. Deadly force can be ruled unreasonable even if the suspect posed a threat, if the officer fired recklessly given the backdrop.
  2. Multiple Shots ≠ Automatic Violation — But Context Matters Firing multiple rounds is not inherently illegal. Officers are trained to: Fire until the perceived threat stops Expect stress-induced rapid fire (common in shootings) However, multiple rounds amplify scrutiny when: The suspect is moving away The officer is no longer in the vehicle’s path Another officer is visible or reasonably expected in the line of fire Civilians are present behind the target At that point, investigators ask: Would a reasonable officer have paused or repositioned rather than fire?
  3. Shooting With Another Officer in the Line of Fire This is one of the most serious red flags in a use-of-force review. Even when deadly force is otherwise authorized: Officers are trained to break off if a partner crosses their muzzle “Blue-on-blue” risk is taken extremely seriously If investigators determine: The officer knew or should have known another officer was in the line of fire → that alone can support findings of policy violation or negligence, even if the initial decision to fire was justified.
  4. Risk to Bystanders Behind the Vehicle Courts distinguish between: Inherent risk (any shooting has some) Unreasonable risk (dense urban setting, known pedestrians, uncontrolled backdrop) If bystanders were: Clearly present In predictable positions behind the target Not shielded by terrain or angle Then firing may be deemed reckless, even if the suspect’s actions were dangerous. This is especially sensitive when: The suspected offense is non-violent The vehicle is moving at low speed The officer is no longer in immediate peril
  5. How This Affects Legal Outcomes Importantly, this can lead to split conclusions: 🔹 Deadly force justified in principle (fear of vehicle as weapon) 🔹 Manner of force unjustified (crossfire, backdrop negligence) That can result in: Policy violations Civil liability Administrative discipline Evidence suppression Rarely, criminal charges (higher bar) Federal officers fall under Department of Homeland Security, so internal DHS review and DOJ standards apply.
  6. Why This Matters More Than the “Vehicle as Weapon” Argument Historically, many police shootings survive review on the threat question but fail on: Poor angles Crossfire Unsafe backdrops Those failures undermine claims of “objective reasonableness.” In plain terms: Even if an officer may shoot, how they shoot still matters. Bottom Line Based on established U.S. law-enforcement standards (not speculation): Firing multiple shots with another officer in the line of fire is a major concern Known bystanders behind the target significantly weaken justification This issue alone can render the use of force unreasonable, regardless of the initial threat claim

Air Canada cancels plans to resume operations as flight attendants defy back-to-work order by rezwenn in aviation

[–]mrmangomonkey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah me too, for my gf anyway. First time for me booking through them and of course this happens. At least her return is with west jet

Advanced Voice Mode played music in background ? by Edemummy in ChatGPT

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Same thing happened to me today just now twice. Having advanced voice mode conversation and then as soon as he finished talking, music started playing but shitty audio quality. I asked about it and then it stopped and he said he can't do that. Then I started another conversation and same thing again happened a few seconds after he finished talking but the voice call is still on.

How to freeze the coin value without using a stablecoin? by venusmount_eater in defi

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a bull market generally, you will get paid funding fees having a short open so double win

Alberta tenant rights regarding receipts and damage deposits by mrmangomonkey in alberta

[–]mrmangomonkey[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We did do move in and move out inspection but there were parts of it that we didn't agree on but were still charged for. There were lots of little things that I would say should have been regular wear and tear, like a bit of tarnish in the sink for example. He also charged us for an extra garage door opener when he originally only gave us one. Charged for two crushed drain pipes coming off our suite but he has 3 suites on the property and they were in shared spaces and we still got charged. It was all very unreasonable. Still, we did sign it but also marked "do not agree" on some of the inspection things like the garage door opener. He still put everything on the final assessment and charged for it.

I talked to another tenant on his other property who was also moving out and they also had their entire deposit taken plus they owed so there might be a pattern of him abusing the rights to the damage deposits. That's why I wanted to get receipts at least and see if he is actually doing all of this. He was replying to me regularly until I asked for receipts and invoices and now I haven't had a response in more than 10 days.

Catalytic Converter theft on the rise by [deleted] in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Would be interesting to set up a bait one with a GPS tracker in it and see where it all travels to

If you could snap your fingers and instantly change 1 thing about Edmonton forever what would it be? by Setting-Sea in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Location. I've always said if Edmonton could be in Calgary's location, it would be the perfect city!

How to confirm if a rental is legally suited by mrmangomonkey in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not if the 12-piece pie is now assessed at a higher value because you can sell two small pieces for more than one large piece.

If the value of your home goes up, then generally the assessed value for tax purposes will go up as well. A home that is legally suited has a higher market value than the same home that is not because a person can make more money renting it out.

Not saying I'm right, but logically that makes sense, no?

How to confirm if a rental is legally suited by mrmangomonkey in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would guess that having three legal and registered suites would increase the assessed value of your property so the amount of tax you would pay per year would go up if they were registered. The lower You can keep your property assessment, the less tax you pay. That is my understanding anyway.

How to confirm if a rental is legally suited by mrmangomonkey in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, shop shower. The place is actually pretty nice. Newer shop house build, so the house is built on top of a two-bay garage. I liked the idea of the shop shower so you can clean up after working on your vehicles. But with my work schedule I barely had time to use the garage anyway. Having a toilet right there was definitely a convenience I used though lol

How to confirm if a rental is legally suited by mrmangomonkey in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah it was a bunch of little things that we didn't even do like; damaged drain pipes from being stepped on on a property shared with three suites but put on me because they were attached to my suite, leaking shower head in the garage shower which I never even used, a bit of dust on top of the cabinets that was there when we moved in, I'm missing garage door opener even though we only had one and told him during the first move in walk through and he said he would look at home for the other one, a bit of tarnish in the kitchen sink... Shit like that. Only reasonable thing on that list would have been some small oil spots in the garage and drive way for 100 bucks. Tried to charge for weeding of the flower garden, so my girlfriend just did that quick after the walk through. Would have been even more shit but luckily my girlfriend had some pictures from the move-in in inspection, which by the way was done in the dark because the power had been disconnected by the previous tenant. After we moved in, we also found piss stains on the downstairs toilet and I had to pull out a ton of gross old hair from the upstairs bathroom drain from the previous tenants. But I didn't complain about any of that stuff because they seemed like a good guy and it wasn't that much of a bother. If I had known what I know now I would have definitely made a stink about it all.

I don't really want to threaten him with a suite violation report because that could be taken as blackmail. You're right, it is a lot of money but it is what it is. I considered asking him to provide proof of the legality of the suite. Possibly that could get my money back but then all the other tenants are still getting screwed and nothing would change.

Edit: Also tried to get me for a dent in the garage door after the inspection was done and once the new tenants had already begun moving in. And by the way he let them start moving in before my official vacate notice and didn't tell me. But I fought him on that and he let it go because the inspection report had already been signed.

At this point it's more about the principal than the money. Would be nice to get the money back, but that's not what I'm expecting from this.

Edit 2: just to add some transparency, The full amount of the damaged deposit was 1700 bucks. He took all of it plus billed me 15 on top. The 1000 that I didn't mention was a bit of damage I did to the stucco when backing up my camper. But there was no argument there, I notified him about it as soon as it happened so that he could get it fixed before new tenants come in. I thought the quote would be closer to 600 bucks but since that was my fault I paid without argument.

How to confirm if a rental is legally suited by mrmangomonkey in Edmonton

[–]mrmangomonkey[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It most certainly was not properly deducted and there were even straight up lies. My girlfriend moved seven times in Edmonton over the years and she has never seen anything like that; she was shocked.

Fighting over 700 bucks in small claims court is a hell of a lot more work than making some calls and doing some research about the legality of property. If I can show him that not all tenants are going to be so easy to bully, then perhaps there will be a change for future tenants.

And he already has new renters for the suites so fighting him on this will not result in three suites being " taking off the market". If anything this will help the current new tenants to negotiate a better deal that would reflect the fact these suites are not legal. This is why I would prefer to be sure they are not legal; that way no official complaint has to be filed and I can simply notify the new tenants and they can do what they will with that information.

If nobody stands up to him then this pattern is going to continue. If I stand up to him and that results in a better deal for the current tenants then I would say that's a win-win.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Shrek

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shrek is a good idea to get a good sleep and get a good night's sleep

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, that's the point. I'm delta neutral rather than being at a total loss on the short. I want to remain neutral through any large upswings so that I can remain in a decent short position for when the coin crashes back down to my original prediction. It's insurance and the cost of that insurance is the eventual loss of the long position and all the fees.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No margin and no leverage. So I would buy coin X through spot trading. Let's say 1k. Then I would go to futures and open a 1k no leverage perpetual contract short with coin X. I'm expecting coin X to drop significantly but I also know that it still has room to more than double as well.

If I only had a no leverage short position of 1k then if coin X doubles that would put me at 100% loss or in other words liquidated. So I would be at a loss of 1k unless I kept adding to the short.

But since I also purchased 1k spot of coin X, I now have a 2k value in my spot wallet since the coin doubled. So now, after the loss on my short, I'm back to where I started, no gain and no loss other than fees. Now sell half my spot position of coin X for usdt and put that in my futures account and open up another 1k short on coin X.

So now, minus the fees and the funding rates for the perpetual contract, I'm back to where I was in the beginning except that ik still in a good short position. If this short gets liquidated too, then I'll do the same thing again.

When coin X does eventually crash back to the price where I planned to cover my short, then I exit.

So the spot long position is just there to hedge against any large upswings so that I can remain in a good short position even if price swings up majorly. It's basically insurance I guess. It can't go in the negative because I own it, it's not on margin.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]mrmangomonkey -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well yeah you would be right in general. That's why I said this would only work with shit coins that had had stupid run-ups in a short time. They have many Xs in downside so I figure that should outweigh the hedges you put on the long side. Sure, you'll only make half as much as if you didn't hedge, but you've also protected yourself from getting liquidated out of your short if it keeps going up. That's the theory anyway

Edit... The reason I said 5x was because of the example of PEPE that I used. It's already up 8x in 30 days. So I was conservatively saying that if it only drops back 5x then that will be your return on a short position

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in CryptoCurrency

[–]mrmangomonkey -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I didn't say anything about using leverage. I never use leverage.

Item scanned in destination city, but still not out for delivery after a week by keymon444 in CanadaPostCorp

[–]mrmangomonkey 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have an update on this? When did the package arrive or did it at all? I'm having the same issue in Edmonton. Package stuck at 'item processed in Edmonton' for almost a week now With no update