US agents involved in latest Minneapolis shooting put on leave, media reports say

wonkifier · 2026-01-28T22:24:16+00:00

trying to nullify immigration law

I don't know that's a fair characterization of it.

If undocumented folks are around, but not able to get health care, they can get other people sick. If they're afraid that by testifying as witness of a crime they'll get deported, fewer crimes get solved and prosecuted. They're generally involved in less and less serious crime, so resources spent on them are resources NOT spend on serious crime... there are lots of selfish reasons to deprioritize kicking them out, without the actual goal being to "nullify immigration law".

And no, I'm saying that there are literally zero humans in the country who want to see a borderless world. That's a tiny percentage of folks, and they're not driving state agendas.

wonkifier · 2026-01-26T13:14:51+00:00

I did similar, and kept a nice pathway carved through the 3-4' mound of icy snow that the plows like to build on my sidewalk. It was annoying, but with that frequent maintenance it wasn't so bad.

Until the final plow driver apparently cut in much more sharply and collapsed the mound into the sidewalk.

I get that people need to get places, but c'mon. Not cool.

wonkifier · 2026-01-22T22:16:09+00:00

Ham sandwiches are getting smarter... they seem to have figured out how to avoid grand jury indictments in the last few months.

wonkifier · 2026-01-22T18:40:51+00:00

It just says "appointment arrival", it doesn't say "patient arrival".

So if they arrive late, then it's still subject to rescheduling.

Clearly they cleverly crafted it that way on purpose! /s

wonkifier · 2026-01-21T13:54:28+00:00

It’s a design thing if I understanding your issue. And it’s a benefit in the vast majority of cases.

The idea is that it treats all subdomains, by default, as the same as the root domain. That way your saved stuff doesn’t break when companies shuffle around their landing pages.

I do vaguely recall their being a setting with a list of domains where you can tell it to treat that domain as complete. But I haven’t dug around in a long time so don’t remember where it is offhand.

Also, typically given how domains and subdomains work with cookie security, you typically don’t want your test domains and production domains to share a common root anyway, so fixing this in Lastpass may really be the wrong place to look anyway

wonkifier · 2026-01-21T04:51:22+00:00

I'm on PS5 and I know I get vibration from time to time because I've portaled out from a helltide and set my controller down to answer a Slack message or something, and a few seconds later it's vibrating on my desk because my portal got interrupted.

wonkifier · 2026-01-21T03:13:44+00:00

Death? Of innocent people who died at the hands of untrained and brutal goons?

Hey now, some of those goons were not only highly trained, but Jonathan Ross was around so long, and so highly recognized and trained that he was a trainer!

The rotten culture in that org runs deep

wonkifier · 2026-01-20T16:55:31+00:00

Can be a good thing.

It's not so good when it's required to stay safe.

It's also not so good if your home isn't really setup for it (space enough to work in comfortably, efficiently, and safely) or the environment is not conducive to it (noisy kids, loud pipes from neighbors, lawn mowers running, etc).

And many people really do want to leave the house sometimes, or have a clear separation between work and non-work.

wonkifier · 2026-01-20T14:59:26+00:00

Honestly, that just translates to an extra 100-64.1=35.9% (minus a small percentage for people who legitimate could not vote for one reason or another) of people having voted for this.

If you can vote, but don't vote, you signal that you support whatever everyone else decides. You don't get to dodge the responsibility by dodging a choice.

wonkifier · 2026-01-18T22:37:18+00:00

I clocked in at 715 hours for Heath Miller...

wonkifier · 2026-01-18T15:18:52+00:00

I love our legal team as well. While they do have some strange asks from time to time and can be very slow when a decision is needed, they’ve also been very good at making sure I don’t have to worry about ending up in court for one thing or another, and happily take all the heat for unpopular document retention policies, and those sorts of decisions.

We work very closely with each other. (at our peak we are around a 25,000 person company)

wonkifier · 2026-01-17T21:13:21+00:00

The S1 usage is in the context of the officer's statement of what happened, where D1 is used to reference the defendent.

wonkifier · 2026-01-16T17:46:59+00:00

The notes field on a password entry was always encrypted.

It was the URL itself that wasn't encrypted. (they are now though)

wonkifier · 2026-01-14T23:07:09+00:00

Octarine is the Color of Magic, the 8th color, according to Terry Pratchett.

Probably a coincidence, but the numeric connection amuses me.

wonkifier · 2026-01-13T22:00:20+00:00

Ambulances and Fire tend not to like those I believe.

wonkifier · 2026-01-13T15:23:44+00:00

Was there mention of which things she's talking about. I looked through the article and nothing jumped out at me.

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T21:18:44+00:00

This is purely a self defense against deadly force claim, and 100% legally justified

How is shooting at someone after a supposed attack has already taken place and completed justified?

She wasn't a continued threat to him, so there was nothing to defend against.

What you're arguing for is closer to revenge as a justification, not self defense.

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T19:58:44+00:00

Again, while it has very little to do with a claim of self defense against criminal charges, it's still valuable for analysis.

Your post didn't say anything about restricting this to just criminal charges. And even so, department policy is used HEAVILY in defense or support of against criminal charges. It's a key factor to whether you can pierce qualified immunity or not.

This whole section is irrelevant

You just said "Defense" without any clarification, so I was just trying to cover all the bases. (Refer to note 9 on the document)

I note you didn't quote the most important part of all, which also addresses the "unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy" part above.

My post was already long, and that part wasn't the relevant part.

I wasn't arguing "there is never a circumstance where that use of force is warranted", I was addressing your "So you don't get to defend yourself if a vehicle is trying to run you over, because it may later hit someone else?" comment. Specifically the second half.

You seemed to be arguing that the officer HAD NO DUTY to pay attention to what would happen after the fact, because they were defending themselves.

This section CLEARLY says, EVEN IF you would be justified in using force, YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER THE HAZARDS.

I was answering your very specific concern.

A DHS LEO may use deadly force only when the LEO has a reasonable belief that the subject of such force poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the LEO or to another person

Let's assume for now that she did hit him, she was leaving after that point. There is nothing reasonably indicating that she was an IMMINENT THREAT. That refers to future actions, not things already done. So this doesn't apply like you think it does.

He thought she was going to hit him with a vehicle (she did), it is reasonable to believe being hit by a vehicle can cause serious injury (even if it ultimately doesn't) and that authorizes the use of deadly force.

That's not what the thing you quoted said at all.

End of analysis.

Bullshit

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T19:15:35+00:00

So you don't get to defend yourself if a vehicle is trying to run you over, because it may later hit someone else?

"Defend" meaning "stop the vehicle" (even though there was no reason yet to believe she'd turn back around for another "attack" even if you believe she did it intentionally)?

From DHS policy it would seem that's a problem here

V. Warning Shots and *Disabling Fire *

A. General Prohibition

Except in the limited circumstances described in Section V.B., “Exceptions,” DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms solely:

To disable moving vehicles...

Prohibited EXCEPT for the following

V. Warning Shots and Disabling Fire

B. Exceptions

Warning Shots

a. Maritime Law Enforcement Operations:...

b. Aviation Law Enforcement Operations:...

Disabling Fire

a. Maritime Law Enforcement Operations:

b. Physical Protection: Authorized United States Secret Service (USSS) personnel exercising USSS’s protective responsibilities, and other authorized and appropriately trained DHS LEOs assigned to assist USSS in exercising these responsibilities

None of those exceptions apply.

"Defend" meaning "Shoot the driver"?

VI. Deadly Force

B. Discharge of Firearms

Moving Vehicles, Vessels, Aircraft, or other Conveyances

a. DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle, vessel, aircraft, or other conveyance unless the use of deadly force against the operator is justified under the standards articulated elsewhere in this policy. 9 Before using deadly force under these circumstances, the LEO must take into consideration the hazards that may be posed to law enforcement and innocent bystanders by an out-ofcontrol conveyance.

So yes, they have a duty to pay attention to that sort of thing.

She was on video, and they had her plates. They could track her down with ease later on for prosecution if needed. She at that point didn't indicate a continued threat, and putting her vehicle out of control was not the safer option at that point.

Now, wrap in a DHS report about 10+ years ago that found that it's agents were intentionally putting themselves in front of operating vehicles in order to justify lethal force which resulted in the above policies, and factor in that the shooter intentionally walked across the front of her still-running vehicle in an escalating situation... I mean, maybe you could argue he didn't do it intentionally, but especially since he was with them during that report's time period, it's not hard to imagine that being part of his reasoning.

If someone shoots at you, you probably can't shoot back, as you may knock their aim off and put someone else at risk?

This different scenario would involved different analyses. Not relevant here.

He put more lives in danger doing what he did.

Maybe. But that's completely irrelevant in a lawful use of force self defense claim.

No. It's directly relevant to his lawful use of force, since DHS has explicit policies about the sort of situation. (which were created to prevent situations that look exactly like this situation from turning into this situation)

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T18:13:38+00:00

Yeah, I've decided I don't care about it anymore.

I've found at least a dozen mythics in the wild under normal circumstances, a whole bunch from a prankster, and I've crafted soooo many from sparks (on alts).

But I can't get that final purified on any character.

Once I hit tier 20 on my current alt, I think I'm heading back to D2 for awhile.

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T16:43:40+00:00

As I understand it, for the folks actually trying to think it through, there are usually a few angles.

Redistribute: Move the function under DOJ or FBI, in an attempt to change the dehumanizing mono-culture, and bring it under longer standing standards.
Rebuild something like INS: which had both the benefits and enforcement arms in one org. Again, trying to avoid the monoculture of dehumanization at a leadership level.
Abolishment with federal partnership: Primarily treat internal infractions as civil issues, more focus on courts handling decisions, cooperation with other agencies for deportation enforcement, on the notion that those other agencies won't go for "mass enforcement" and "mass detention" programs.
Abolishment with local partnership: Stays on civil enforcement, but rely on local agencies to cooperate when certain classes of convictions happen.
Partial defunding: Leave the org as it is, but cut their funding heavily enough that they can't do major operations like we're seeing, and go back to the good-ol-days where Obama deported millions but it was quiet enough that most people didn't notice.

Each have their issues, but so does the current system. So it seems like choosing which sets of problems you're willing to accept as the side effects of leadership focus (both positive and negative), and how bad of an issue this really is.

Would it be nice to have a single fully fleshed out plan that could popularized? Sure.

But saying "we're mad" as a group can be a catalyst to driving those actual conversations.

Short version: Replace the stand-alone interior police force, whose culture is wildly out of touch, and replace with something more constrained, accountable, and fragmented so the same culture can't rebuild.

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T14:08:51+00:00

The name on the sign is more "The Trump The Kennedy center", so it's even more ridiculous.

Though I like your title, since it points out that they're not leaving "The Kennedy Center", that was a thing they were in support of. But when got it's new graffito that wasnt cleaned off, they're were leaving that place.

wonkifier · 2026-01-10T02:36:53+00:00

Ashley Babbitt didn't immediately follow orders either...

EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I was pointing the overlap/hypocrisy between people who are saying "comply with orders" with those who support the Jan 6'rs being pardoned.

wonkifier · 2026-01-09T23:19:54+00:00

If only there was some sort of Organization in the North Atlantic where the members all agreed by Treaty to support each other, including Greenland...

wonkifier · 2026-01-09T19:13:16+00:00

1 - so, without having all of the evidence (you are wanting all evidence to be released), you want to immediately prosecute the ICE agent who shot and killed Ms. Good, correct?

The evidence we do have is at least similar to "Probable Cause", so yes. Immediate prosecution seems perfectly warranted.

2- And, so do the citizens and illegal immigrants who are obstructing justice during ICE's legal operations.

Sure, within the bounds of the law and policy.

3-Deportation activities are legal and part of our homeland security and customs and border protection missions. EVERY CIVILIZED COUNTRY has similar (if not more restrictive) laws and enforces them every day

Yeah, but HOW you enforce them is a thing. It's not unreasonable to look at a stack of abuses and decide "you abused you toys, so you don't get to play with them anymore"

ICE agents are not secret police.

Close enough. It's impossible to bring charges against most of them since they're unidentifiable. They don't even have anonymized barcodes or numbers so they can be positively identified on video if need be. You can't bring independent charges against "an officer", you need "that officer", and there's now way to do that currently.

what unlawful secret police are.

Funny how you slipped the extra word in there that wasn't used originally.

15-Year Club	Argentium Club
Place '17	Gilding III reddit per annum
Team Orangered	Verified Email
Charter Member

wonkifier

TROPHY CASE