I would think that that would be the bare minimum requirement to enforce a no fly zone like this, and even then it’s not nearly enough. They certainly would never do such a thing though. Regardless, it won’t stop them from manhandling and arresting those who continue to fly drones in the presence of their vehicles.
Ok, so I would argue that this is likely completely unlawful. Certainly untenable. The legal justification for the restricting flight privileges over certain government buildings is due to the security needs of a location that similarly has restricted access to your person. In other words, you need special access to go in there, and similarly you need special access to look into there, thus the justification for the no fly zone.
But a government vehicle in motion in public has no more restrictions to observation than any other vehicle in public. There is no restriction to your presence around these vehicles, nor recording them with equipment on your person. In fact, recording government operations that you have legal access to has repeated been upheld as a 1st amendment protected activity so long as you aren’t interfering. Drone footage in public airspace does not constitute any more security access than one already possesses in a public space, where security is limited basically to entering the interior of the vehicle (and nothing a drone could see isn’t in plain view). There is, therefore, no legal justification for restricting flight privileges in those spaces.
The only reason that they are trying to restrict this is because they are already violating people’s 1st Amendment right to record their activities, knocking phones out of people’s hands, confiscating devices, threatening or actually arresting those recording, etc. They don’t want to be recorded while they kidnap, assault, beat up, and kill people, and it is much harder to knock down a camera attached to a drone 100 feet in the air. I say tough shit, fascists. It should be 100% protected activity. I cant wait for this to be struck down.
But also, how in the hell can someone be in violation of a no fly zone that constantly moves and and does so without any way to track it? How are you supposed to know that your drone is within HALF A MILE of a ICE vehicle, most of which are unmarked SUVs anyway. You could feasibly be standing right next to one and not know that you are. You could be flying your drone completely legally and then the no fly zone moves over your drone, likely with absolutely no way of even knowing that. It would make flying a drone a constant danger of spontaneously and unknowlingly breaking the law. No such law could ever be considered reasonable. It is far too broad.
Yeah, it’s not the meat, to me. It’s the crunch. No thank you. Also, we rarely eat all parts of the shellfish. We typically remove or otherwise avoid the digestive tract, for example. Can’t do that when they are tiny, but the same volume of crickets has as much poop in it as the equivalent volume of shrimp.
Make Nazis afraid again
Schumer is alllllmost ready to write that strongly worded letter. He can practically taste the envelope glue.
That’s not true. You can’t kill someone with one of those Airzooka air blasters. Damn it I’ve tried. But yeah basically everything else…
One of the most evil in the history of the US government. Which, frankly, it’s a high bar.
They are legally vulnerable. The problem is that libel/defamation requires several specific tests to prove, some of which often dont apply to such situations.
They have to make a factual assertion that is demonstrably untrue. It cant be just an opinion. (This one heavily depends on the specifics what is claimed)
It must be publicated or otherwise spread to a third party. (This one obviously is the easiest test in this case)
The claim must clearly be of and concerning the plaintiff, i.e. the one claiming to have been defamed. (Again, this one depends. When they are talking about “these people”, “the protesters”, etc. but not specific individuals, this gets very hard to prove they were even including any specific individuals)
If the person claiming defamation is a public figure, they have to prove they either knew their claim was untrue or that they had a reckless disregard for the truth. If they are a private figure they have to prove that they at least acted with negligence when making their claim, meaning they didnt take reasonable steps to verify information. (This can also be a sticking point as they may claim that they had “good sources,” like the federal government, that verified their claims)
The claim has to have caused actual damages to the person, such as if their livelihood was harmed or receiving death threats. It can’t just be their feelings hurt or people being mad at them. (Again, situational for the people, their job, their situation, and the reactions of others.
Personally I think actual damages is a bad bar because that depends on factors beyond the defamer’s actions. I think the bar should be the reasonabulity of the risk of damages, instead. Like they should’ve known calling someone a looter may lose them a job, regardless of whether the actually lose a job or even had one already, right?
But anyway, a lot of the lies they tell have just enough wiggle room to claim that it fails on at least one of these tests. Like maybe they weren’t make a specific claim of fact was demonstrably untrue, or they were stating opinion but phrasing it as fact. Or maybe they made a claim about the actions of a group that was true of some, but not all of them. Or maybe they made specific claims of criminal activity and get to claim they verified it with a “reliable” source, like the DOJ or FBI. Or maybe the person can’t prove material damages were caused from the defamation. And then of course, in all of these cases, the defamed must actually seek out justice by bringing suit against the defamers, which plenty do have the money, time or know-how to do.
I highly doubt that any justice will come at scale after this unless huge class action suits are filed, but the Supreme Court has weakened class actions too.
I follow Paula Dean’s advice when it comes to butter. And only that one subject.
The report is especially scathing in its critique of agents who’ve stood in front of moving vehicles, recommending that they “get out of the way…as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in front of such vehicles.” The authors add:
It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver…is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat… Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.
That’s the extra stupidness of this who “self-defense” claim. Even if the guy was actually in danger, even if it had actually been her intent to mow him down… the response was not defensive in the slightest. The danger was a moving vehicle that might be intended to hit him His response was to ensure that vehicle kept moving, and to now do so completely aimlessly and make it an even bigger threat, while making sure that at minimum one person died in the process. And that’s beside the fact that he voluntarily walked right into the only path her vehicle could have taken before shooting her. What a masterful defensive strategist you are.
“Well I thought the guy was gonna shoot me with his revolver, so I shot him in the face first, then I took his revolver, gave the cylinder a spin, put the barrel to my temple and pulled the trigger. When that chamber proved to be unloaded, I started flipping the gun wildly and pulling the trigger more in random directions to make sure the rest of the chambers were cleared. Thank god for my quick thinking. Defense.”
Jesus fuck. Guys. This is the real reason. Yes, he wants the oil. Yes he wants to depose a leader that mocks him and wants to put in one that will kiss his ass. Yes it will make his political and big oil backers happy… But for real… I think this is what the motive for the entire Venezuela thing was actually about. Trump wants leverage to take the Novel Prize that he thinks should be his. That’s it. The rest is just icing on the cake. He’d have wanted to do it even without any other reason. I just… this is the worst kind of fiction. Let me the fuck off this ride.
What the actual fuck is wrong with these ass kissing, brown nosing sycophants that just do everything possible to play into and boost Trump’s ego. For the love of god, just suck his fucking dick already. You look hungry as hell. Gobble some Trump nuts and stop pretending like everyone else is weird for not craving the taste.
This is obstruction of justice. They are preventing state level prosecution. My prediction is that they will most likely find that the officer’s conduct was legal and he’ll get off. Or if they attempt to actually pretend they give a shit about the rule of law in the face of public backlash, they’ll charge him knowing Trump will just pardon him. They are stopping the state from getting the evidence necessary to bring their own charges specifically so that they maintain control and the ability to pardon this guy if needed. They have no intention of holding him to account, or letting the state of Minnesota do so, no matter what they find.
And so some of the biggest real estate corporations in America pay him personally to make this go away. Just the same protection racket bullshit he did to Law firms and big tech companies. In the meantime, we get to watch conservatives suddenly start explaining why corporate landlords and Laissez-faire capitalism (but specifically for single family homes) are bad, without a single ounce of irony, until Trump gets his bribe money and they they can stop pretending they give a shit again. So that’ll be a thing.
My guy, this entire community is based around people who post shit like this all the time in complete earnestness. I dont think that its as “obvious” as you do that this particular case is satire. But even if it is, that is only confirmation that plenty enough people post shit like this being serious that there is something to even satirize about it. So, whether or not this specific guy is making a joke, my comment and question about serious LinkedIn posts like it still stands. But you in particular who calls people idiots for participating in the purpose of the community they are in, and acts like a smarmy asshole about it too… you can fuck off.
I don’t hang out on LinkedIn reading social posts. If I’m there, it’s too check job posts or answer direct messages from recruiters. Do idiots like this not get blasted by everyone for these asinine tasks? Or are all the people that actually participate in the LinkedIn social feed as deluded as them?
Hopefully right after the elections but before January. That way he’ll live long enough to get to watch the GOP lose congress and several state legislatures/governorships (because of his uncountable failures, terrible policies, attempted treasonous autocratic takeover, and just being a fucking vile excuse for a human being) but not long enough to make JD president for less than half a term because that means he could only ever serve one more. Assuming that JD himself isn’t impeached and convicted and removed from office.
Next tell her that that text we were waiting on was made with only numbers on our phones. Her brain my come out her nose.
DBZ pun names even cross over into English sometimes. Vegeta and Bulmas kids are Trunks and Bra. King Cold’s kids are Freiza (Freezer) and Cooler. Saiyanss are from planet Vegeta (short for Vegetables) and all of their names are modified vegetables like Kakarot (carrot), Raditz (Radish), Nappa (Napa Cabbage), Broli (Broccoli). Mr. Satan’s daughter is Videl (anagram for Devil). Bibidi, Babidi, and Buu (Bibbidi-babbidi-boo from Disney Cinderella movie). Bubbles is named after Michael Jackson’s chimp. Whis and Beerus are Whiskey and Beers, and Champa is Champagne. King Piccolo’s minions are Piano, Tambourine, Cymbal, and Drum, all instruments. There’s a ton.
I mean… that is just good design. The main function should be the initializer and orchestrator of the logic. You should be able to look at the main function and tell, at a high level, what the program is doing. It should be usually pretty basic and procedural. Other functions handle the details and complexity.