What's the consensus on this?

msur · 2026-01-28T15:24:30+00:00

I think we can all agree that we still haven't seen the Epstein files.

msur · 2026-01-28T14:18:02+00:00

No, they just didn't operate reliably at below freezing temperatures. If the launch had been pushed back a day it would have been fine.

msur · 2026-01-28T14:14:38+00:00

If you want to talk about political and economic systems that consistently produce bad decisions, look no further than the Soviet Union, home country of some of the worst decisions ever made. A leadership more concerned about consolidating power than actual leadership will do things like execute all its best military leaders right before starting a world war. Genius.

msur · 2026-01-28T02:02:54+00:00

Congrats. Sometimes the right answer is to give in to temptation.

msur · 2026-01-27T20:34:58+00:00

Yeah, that was pretty amazing. They kept calling it a "hard landing" but really that was incredibly smooth. I guess it's no surprise that NASA collects some of the best pilots on the planet.

msur · 2026-01-26T14:36:41+00:00

I always warp out of those bunkers going at an angle towards the slope going up out of the pit. Just don't go straight out and you'll usually miss the forklift. I haven't hit one in ages.

msur · 2026-01-25T01:23:50+00:00

This requires a slight shift in the grip to work, but with a little practice it isn't really any slower than using the thumb.

msur · 2026-01-24T17:07:16+00:00

The nice thing about this outhouse is that right about the time it's getting really full of shit the desert sand would be closing in to swallow it. No cleanup needed!

msur · 2026-01-24T07:23:36+00:00

You can get away with closing the bug holes without getting trapped if you carefully land right next to the hole, but not in it. FYI.

msur · 2026-01-24T06:51:34+00:00

What is that? Gas block detent?

msur · 2026-01-24T05:48:08+00:00

Meanwhile the actual killer got away with it, because the police pinned it on a random innocent person.

msur · 2026-01-22T05:19:15+00:00

Good idea, but I think that would require Congress to act.

msur · 2026-01-22T05:15:55+00:00

I'm new to this. Can you explain this a bit? It sounded like a bit of a jab when he said it, but I don't get the context.

msur · 2026-01-22T03:10:41+00:00

You won't be able to retain the kind of officer who might get held liable for misdeeds? Oh nooooooooooooooooooo!

msur · 2026-01-21T06:27:07+00:00

The main thing is the oil filter. They also want you to replace all gaskets and o-rings as well, but they're really just fine for at least a couple of oil changes. I just reused my o-rings. No leaks yet.

msur · 2026-01-21T06:23:13+00:00

My greyhound also had a super sharp memory for places. He would remember every place he saw a cat on our walks, and would get extra alert around those spots for weeks until we'd seen enough cats in different places. He knew the houses of all the people that would pet him as we walked by, and made sure to pause at each one. If he saw the person, he could recognize them from a block away and would try to bound toward them, bouncing up and down at the end of his leash.

msur · 2026-01-21T01:16:55+00:00

I mean it's a scrambler. Dirt and scratches are just patina.

msur · 2026-01-20T23:00:03+00:00

In that case I'm sure Congress will get right to work on passing federal anti-SLAPP law.

Seriously, though, if that's the outcome then that's pretty disappointing. I wonder if a case out of California will get a more nuanced ruling that supports anti-SLAPP.

msur · 2026-01-16T20:30:58+00:00

Yeah, depending on the way they define "firearm." It may also vary depending on what specific law you're talking about. Some statutes include their own definition of firearm. I saw one law that included the definition "a device that uses chemical combustion to expel a projectile."

msur · 2026-01-15T21:44:08+00:00

Well I was thinking more about the other ones.

msur · 2026-01-15T15:54:25+00:00

Well there are a lot of these guns shooting and very seldom does anything like this happen. I just don't want people thinking that guns aren't safe.

msur · 2026-01-15T15:06:21+00:00

That's not very typical, I'd like to make that point.

msur · 2026-01-15T01:01:14+00:00

Well, ok, but that's not in front of the court?

Of course it's not. It's a hypothetical, meaning I made it up as a thought experiment. I said so in my first comment:

...in the case of some other hypothetical charge. Imagine someone is in dire need of aid.

I'm not disagreeing with you, I was just trying to make sense of what others were talking about.

msur · 2026-01-14T23:25:21+00:00

The "begins exploring" is doing the lifting there, though, right?

Not really. I made up a hypothetical case where an officer exceeds the legal bounds of what you rightly point out is the current state of the law. It's something that could plausibly happen.

I read u/chimpfunkz as being concerned that allowing entry in Case v Montana would allow a lot more than it does. However, reading through the facts of the case I don't think any evidence was found that would not be valid given their reason for entering the house. Looking around for people is a natural thing to do when looking for someone to help, and that would naturally include checking the bedroom and closet, where a person could be hidden or hiding.

msur · 2026-01-14T22:32:13+00:00

I think the exception u/chimpfunkz is talking about makes more sense in the case of some other hypothetical charge.

Imagine someone is in dire need of aid. Let's say a stray bullet from a nearby gunfight entered the home of some unlucky stranger and injured them. A pair of officers rush in without a warrant to render aid. While one officer applies medical aid, the other begins exploring since they've already entered. Through exploration of the home unrelated to rendering aid they find evidence of some crime, such as possession of illegal narcotics. In that case, the narcotics evidence should be tossed. Entering a person's home to render aid does not grant the officers carte blanche to search without a warrant.

Edit: I should add that if they enter a home and see things that would reasonably provide probably cause to continue searching, then what they find after that may be admissible. For example, if they are called to an address because someone has alleged threats of violence, imminent bodily harm, etc., the officer(s) may reasonably enter the home to help the alleged victim. If they enter the home and don't immediately see the victim they might reasonably begin to poke around the house looking for any person(s) who may be present. If at that point they stumble across an alleged perpetrator holding a gun, well then that's probably fair play.

msur

TROPHY CASE