Forgive me for coopting this thread to mention a news item that didn't come up in Megan's typically fine roundup...

Terrific article in The Atlantic today by one Yair Rosenberg:
"The Biggest Myth About Trump’s Base (And Why Many Believe It)"
"The MAGA faithful aren’t deserting their leader."
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/2026/01/maga-trump-base-schism-exaggerated/685598/

Not really any revelations. Just somebody who's willing to see hard, objective reality and not get distracted by shiny objects like Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon, MTG, and conventional-wisdom analysis stories in The New York Times.

Money passage: "The obvious conclusion is this: These purportedly pro-Trump figures do not actually speak for Trump or his supporters. Trumpism is not neo-isolationist or neoconservative, pro-restraint or pro-intervention. It is not pro-worker or pro-billionaire. It is whatever Trump says it is."

"First of all, that shitty CNN headline buries the lead."

As a journalist and managing editor of a newspaper, shouldn't this writer know the difference between "lead" and "lede?" 😉

Quick reminder that pretending to have been scared of being run over as an excuse for shooting drivers is not just an ICE tactic:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/police-traffic-stops-shooting.html

"The officer’s defense of killing Mr. Mifflin, who wielded neither a gun nor a knife, is one repeated over and over across the country: The vehicle was a weapon. In a New York Times investigation of car stops that left more than 400 similarly unarmed people dead over the last five years, those words were routinely used to explain why police officers had fired at drivers. ... In about 250 of the 400 seemingly avoidable deaths, The Times found that police officers had fired into vehicles that they later claimed posed such a threat."

@2 "lede" was invented in the 1980s. It's optional, "lead" is still/also perfectly cromulent in talking about journalism. Lede is more common, but not the only correct spelling.

Where is Thumpus to claim that the Prosecutor have an open and shut case to overcome the defenses afforded to the accused and win a conviction, and there is no legal reason not to charge?

"King County Prosecutors Won't Charge Pedro Gomez:"

In this case the Prosecutor can't prove the women was impaired to the legal standard required or overcome assertions that could be raised by the accused that they had a reasonable belief they had consent, even if the woman is credible and clear that she did not consent.

In the Minnesota case, the Prosecutor can't prove that a belief by the person that they were at imminent risk of "great bodily harm, was unreasonable.

Different alleged crimes, but the same issue. They have to disprove the perception held by the perpetrator was reasonable (even if it was wrong).

@6: Well, the Minnesota shooting is on video, so that's what they call a "bad fact" 😂

@1. Since you are in the mood, try this one out;
"The fiction at the heart of America’s political divide" - Eric Levitz, Vox
https://www.msn.com/en-us/politics/government/the-fiction-at-the-heart-of-america-s-political-divide/ar-AA1U2XqO

Bits;
"it is contingent historical alliances, not age-old moral philosophies, that explain each side’s motley assortment of issue stances"
“ideologies do not define tribes, tribes define ideologies.”

@8 that's why people like Bax and tensorna are utterly unable to criticize the Democratic Party for anything and get really angry at anyone who does. Their support is entirely divorced from any policy stance and is based solely on a desire to see their team "win," in whatever way the team leaders define winning. They're the equal opposite of die-hard MAGA.

@4 An excellent way to embiggen the conversation!

@3, You have not in any way refuted that as a legal matter, spelled out in Washington State Law, and in other states by common law, that any object can be a deadly weapon, depending on its MANNER OF USE.

You have not refuted in any manner that democratically enacted laws allow the use of deadly force in self-defense is permitted if the person using said force has a REASONABLE BELIEF, that they are at imminent risk of serious physical injury.

Since the State has the burden of proof, the state must prove that the MANNER OF USE was not as a deadly weapon or that the belief was UNREASONABLE based on what the person facing the alleged threat could reasonably perceive from where they were positioned in the incident.

The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt, which includes proving MANNER OF USE of the car, or other object, could not cause serious physical injury, and that they were PRETENDING (I.E. The fear of serious injury was UNREASONABLE).

Manner of use and reasonableness in each individual case are certainly subject to investigation and legal debate; however, the Prosecutor has the burden to prove the manner of use made the object not a deadly weapon, or that the person claiming self-defense was pretending.

@12, She was believed, as The Stranger's coverage shows. The Prosecutor could not overcome other burdens of proof legally required to make the case.

from the Lord of the Rings:

"I wish
it need not
have happened
in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do
all who live to see such times. But
that is not for them to decide.

All we have to decide
is what to do with
the time that is
given us."

from the floors
of a Ford
factory:

“I don’t feel
as though fate
looks upon you often,

and when it does,
you better be ready
to seize the opportunity.

“And today I think I did that.”

--TJ Sabula, UAW worker
who heckled President Trump
and who Trump flipped off and cursed at.

fucking
BINGO & fucking
Bravissimo, TJ Sabula!

thank You
JRR Tolkien.

oh and speaking
of JRRT's LOTR,* There's This:

@9 -- Bingo:

"[Bax and The *Wormtongue's] support
[here, @derr Schlogg, of Dem 'leadership' No
Matter WHAT!] is entirely divorced from any policy
stance and is based solely on a desire to see their team
'win,' in whatever way the team leaders define winning."

EVEN if/WHEN it Hurts
fucking 'Democratic'
Party Voters, and
it surely Does.

Their Allegiance Always
trumpfs America and
its winning Anything

at such an
Enormous Cost
to We, the People and
ESPECIALLY To Dem Voters.

'Thanks'?

Joe Biden was not a great president (maybe not even mediocre) but he was demonstratively better than the orange piece of shit. Harris was a bad candidate but she easily would be better than the orange piece of shit.

US politics is currently a two horse race - I don’t think democrats are infallible but they are demonstrably better than republicans (more so for local politicians who almost exclusively claim to be democrats).

@8: "ideologies do not define tribes, tribes define ideologies.”

Indeed, it was the TQ+ tribe that defined gender theory.

RIP Varsity, you aren't what you used to be, but at least you still existed, giving us an ever changing marquee to peer up at and making us wonder how many students were going to see certain films. The hustle and bustle of the Landmark days are long gone, but the memories of going up and down those stairs will always exist.

It's as if the sun came out just to spite Megan.

As @16 noted, U.S. politics has a two-party system. One of those parties is utterly rotten to the core, leaving the other party, the Democrats, as the only real option. Pretending viable third-party options exist has not produced any good result, but apparently wishing still makes it so for some folks here:

@9: Ha, ha, ha. Quote all of your criticisms of Sawant, starting with your criticism of her having stumped for Trump. Then multiply that number by the number of criticisms of her which the Stranger has made on the same topic. The result will be the absolute upper limit of the value I place upon your critique of my behavior.

@12. Anyone observe "Queers for Iran" handing out pamphlets anywhere? I was under the impression this is a made to order international event for them. I wonder what is amiss?

@21: Living in a dark blue state has its advantage by not having to vote for president and just let the elector college hold their nose.

@21 "Sawant ... having stumped for Trump"

Like I said.

@3,

But “what matters is what he perceived,” said Ed Obayashi, a California sheriff’s deputy who is also a special prosecutor in use-of-force cases. “I don’t want to get hit by a 5,000-pound moving object, even if it is going slow.”

Ashley Heiberger, a retired police captain and use of force expert, noted that an officer’s actions are supposed to be weighed without the benefit of hindsight.

“When these things are happening as fast as they do, the mind’s ability to comprehend and react is not instantaneous — there’s a lag,” he said. “Officers don’t have any faster reflexes than anybody else.”

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/can-the-ice-agent-who-shot-renee-good-be-prosecuted/

@25, given the inability of most line officers not to misuse their firearm, I think we should seriously look at adopting the UK model where only specialist armed response units carry firearms, regular officers do not.

@25 from your own article:

"Steve Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University’s law school, said that given the videos, finding probable cause to charge Ross would not be a stretch.
...
Paul Butler, an expert on police use of force who teaches at Georgetown’s law school, noted that the sequence of the shots and the position from which they were fired would be relevant.
"If Bullet One were fired right before or at the moment where the car hit him or grazed him, and Bullets Two and Three were fired shortly after that, under the law, he would still have to demonstrate that he reasonably feared for his life” when he fired each shot, Butler said.
Butler cautioned that it was difficult to assess what charges could be brought, saying, “We need reliable forensic evidence, which we are unlikely to get from the United States Department of Justice.”

But I understand why you only included the self-serving quotes from cops.

@27, A charge is not a stretch; however, a conviction is.

The Prosecutor does not represent the alleged crime victim, a particular government official, or fidelity to a conviction at any cost. Unlike the defense counsel, who solely and zealously represents the singular interest of one client, for the sole purpose of acquittal, or barring that, a minimal conviction and sentence, the prosecutor is a minister of justice.

"[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate; the prosecutor's duty is to seek justice, not merely to convict or to uphold a conviction." https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics/rules-of-professional-conduct/rule-38-special-responsibilities-of-a-prosecutor/?ruleSearchTerm=Rule%201.16

For that reason, the Prosecutor has to go beyond the idea that they can get a charge to court. They must have evidence to conclude that if they do, they can win the allegation beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is lacking in this case, even if they had access to the forensic evidence in question, AND it showed that the second and third shot were fired from the side.

Why is that? Reaction time. A trained user of a semi-automatic firearm will squeeze off 3 to 5 rounds per second, in three to five separate trigger pulls. Human reaction time is 3/4 to 1 2/5 seconds.

When someone recognizes a threat, with a firearm already pointed at the threat, it will be AT LEAST 3/4 of a second between recognition and when the finger squeezes the trigger.

The same reaction time also occurs when the threat ends. It will be AT LEAST 3/4 of a second between when they recognize the threat has ended and deciding to cease fire and when the finger stops squeezing off rounds.

Further, involuntary fight or flight also severely impedes human perception of what is actually going on. Hearing signals are ignored by the brain, peripheral vision goes away, narrowing what is seen to a pinprick focused on the face and chest of the threat. This and other involuntary effects on the body (E.g. elevated heart and respiration, fine muscle impairment, etc.) are well documented in the scientific literature. Experts would be allowed to testify for the defense that it's unlikely the officer was able to see and register the direction steer tires were moving, and he reasonably only perceived the large mass of the vehicle moving in his direction, not whether it would hit or miss by inches or feet.

Given all that, and the Prosecutor's broader role as a "minister of justice", not the lawyer for the alleged victim, or an advocate for a conviction, that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that the Prosecutor can overcome such evidence and get a conviction? If not, they can't ethically bring the case.

The Prosecutor, unlike the defense, can't ethically go to trial, if they think its a 50/50 shot their is a conviction or acquittal. To even file for the indictment, requires a higher degree of confidence.

The jury is going to get a set of very specific instructions from the Judge to consider the evidence herein, only considering the officers reasonableness of belief about the threat, from what the officer would have seen and appreciated, given the limits of human perception and reaction under that stress, from their position in front of the vehicle.

Many of the other camera angles might not even get into evidence, given that we have video from a camera in the officer's possession. To the extent other camera angles do get in, the jury is going to be instructed to evaluate them not from the angle they were shot, in slow motion, but only how they show the officer perceiving things and reacting.

So as the article states, the path to a conviction is difficult. Given the difficulty, the Prosecutor is ethically constrained to bring it, just as the Prosecutor was constrained in the rape case, where the victim is believed and credible in the Prosecutor's eyes. The crimes and facts of each case are different, but there is evidence in the record that will be brought by a competent defense present to credibly raise reasonable doubt. So as a minister of justice, encountering, and not being able to become overcome that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, they can't ethically charge.

Cases get overturned and Prosecutors disbarred when they bring cases just because they can keep the case on life support long enough to get to trial. The reason the Prosecutor wins over 90% of the time at trial, is because they can only ethically bring the slam dunk. This case isn't.

@27: ''If Bullet One were fired
right before or at the moment where
the car hit him or grazed him, and Bullets Two
and Three were fired shortly after that, under the law,

he would still have
to demonstrate that
he reasonably feared for his life'
when he fired each shot, Butler said."

thanks, thirtreen12.

@7 -- "the shooting was undeniably lawful."

--@nekrasova on January 8, 2026 at 10:22 AM

@9:

"The officer fires two of the shots
when the vehicle is already
well past him. He is not
in front of the car, but
to the side."
--@tS

--kristofarian on January 8, 2026 at 10:30 AM

oh and speaking
of mens rea;

"The officer calmly holsters his weapon."

the Civil Case's gonna Cost
Taxpayers TENS OF
MILLION$

Hopefully,
it'll Cost Cadet
Bonespurs his 'presidency.'

@24: Like I said, indeed. You're always full of criticism for the Democrats, even though the Republicans are worse, but when Sawant stumps for Trump himself, you have nothing to say. Ever.

@9 — look I get that you’re a huge liar who love lying all the time and it’s your passion project, but I’m perfectly happy to criticize the Democratic Party. Joe Biden ran as the moderate candidate in the primary, won, and then hired basically all Elizabeth Warren staffers and abandoned his prior moderate policy positions. Veering to the left on a variety of issues was a disaster and became deeply unpopular.

What the Democrats need to do is relentlessly focus on delivering high quality services to the public at as low a cost as possible, expanding the safety net, and reversing the GOP’s huge tax reductions for the most wealthy. They as a party need to ask themselves what positions would allow them to expand the Senate map to win more seats, then either adopt those positions, or stop criticizing those who do.

Even with these failings I — unlike you — still support Democratic Party candidates because the party’s philosophy is a billion times better than that of Trumpism. I have a preexisting condition as do many members of my family and the ACA has made us all insurable. That’s a massive improvement in my life along with millions of others that is solely attributable to the Democratic Party, so that’s why (among other reasons) I will continue to support them, and continue to oppose people like you who do everything in your power to elect Republicans.

@32 "people like you who do everything in your power to elect Republicans"

By which you mean criticize Dems on this blog, which was my whole point. But, based on your first paragraph, maybe it's more that you just hate the left wing of the party and blame us for everything that ever goes wrong (for example the centrist candidate your wing chose being wildly unpopular and delivering us another Trump term)

"Joe Biden ran as the moderate candidate in the primary"
--@Bax, above

Correction:
JBiden Ran as
a BRIDGE Candidate

till he figured only HE
COULD BEAT cadet bonespurs

and hung on until it was Too
Fucking Late. the Undemocratic
Leaders of the "Democratic" Party,
(LLC, bitches! lol) then shoved Kamala
Harris down the Non-crazy parts of our
Electorate's throats. Harris then proceeded to,
essentially, shove Israel's Genocide down our throats.

(as did the Stranger's reich wing
commentariat contingent right
Here, in a Never-ending
Assault on our
sensibilities/
Humanity)

(even Now
they're trying
to shift the Blame
AWAY from themselves):

(Sawantanistas! Sawantanistas!)

and dems wondered why the Fuck
the non-crazy part of the Electorate
could no longer hold their collective
noses & vote for Yet Another 'Centrist.'

"But, didn't they See
what they were doing
to THEMSELVES?" the
'democratic' party won-
ders, aloud, unironically.

re: 25th and Pike
"I Love YOU"
The Chair.

great pic, Natty!

@33: Aw, is our resident arsonist tired of hearing he shouldn't criticize the fire department?

Ten "Genocide Joe"s and five "Hail Sawant"s should set you aright, eh? Preach it, brother!

@36

from three thousand
Miles Away, thee titular
Head of the Anti-Sawantistas
Cult, unleashes his Wrath upon Kashama,
living Rent-Free in the Wormtongue's cranium~
like RFKjr's brainworm! ~ perhaps they're Related?

@36 misdemeanor arson, prosecuted by the City Attorney, right?