One thing both of you mentioned, and I have been saying for a long time …Trump doesn’t care about anyone … the Republican party, those who work for him, the U.S., or the world, for that matter. He only cares about DJT - 100%. He knows (along with many of us) that he won’t be here forever. He definitely wants to leave his mark … unfortunately, for the above. Aloha, Mike
Great advice Bernie!, and not only for 2026. Fretting over things you can't do anything about--like what Donald Trump says--is a fools game. The Minnesota shooting reminds me about the notion of self defense: If on your daily walk a dog coms at you in an unfriendly way, at what point do you take action? If on a corner an oncoming vehicle is mostly in your lane, what do you do? If an uninvited stranger is in your house, what do you do? The first point is that, assuming my understanding is accurate, if you can articulate that you truly felt your life--or in the dog case bodily harm--was in danger you can take what ever action is necessary to avoid that result. The second point is that time to evaluate options usually doesn't exist. Police are heavily trained regarding these kinds of instances. But the "fear for your life" option applies to them as well as you and I.
I have no idea what may come in the Minnesota shooting incident, and it indeed is a tragedy. But those decisions need to come from officials. Whether you or I agree is of no consequence nor should it be.
Disagree. The more transparent a situation is, the better for everyone. We, all, need to know what actions were taken by authorities, and why. The police. ICE, whomever, work for us, and are paid by us. Aloha, Mike
Agree re: transparency. I was trying to make the point that conclusions drawn by casual or even serious observers of information provided by TV has no legitimate claim to accuracy because not all the information is available. The other point I was trying to make is that cops are entitled to the same "fear of life" position that you and I have. Thanks for the comment Mike. al
There is no end in sight until the crash and burn, unfortunately no one will retreat into their corners but after the climax -- whatever that may be, only God knows.
How about this. Next January, all the Maganoids in congress get on board with the Dems for impeaching and convicting Trump. This is a win for everyone. It gets Trump publicity like no other president and allows him to be even more outrageous and be the biggest (best) victim in US history. It gets the Dems what they want-Trump gone. President Vance can get all kinds of behind-the-scenes instructions from Trump and then campaign as an incumbent. And Republicans can officially rid themselves of Trump.
RE: the MN shooting. The legal standard is not only would reasonable officer think he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm. If the answer is yes, then the question become was there a reasonable alternative.
To answer the first question the officer's state of mind is not relevant. The question is answered by fact finding and analyzing the facts. Incidentally, I tend to think that a reasonable officer would believe he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
On the other hand, I tend to think there was a reasonable alternative to shooting. Since the Officer in question had time to draw his gun and then shoot the driver (I think it was) twice AND ONLY THEN step out of the way of the vehicle, he certainly had time to SIMPLY step out of the way of the vehicle WITHOUT drawing his gun and shooting the driver twice. This seems like a no-brainer, but I'll wait until there's a full and fair investigation, if it ever happens.
The only wiggle room I think the officer might have is if he can show that he had inadequate training. Maybe.
Look, I'm not an ideologue. I said repeatedly that the lady should have exited the vehicle. I've also said, however, that the officer was STUPID to get in front of the car. But the facts remains that the officer was in front of the car and the lady did back up then move forward. And that's where the legal analysis begins.
"To answer the first question the officer's state of mind is not relevant. The question is answered by fact finding and analyzing the facts. Incidentally, I tend to think that a reasonable officer would believe he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm."
Bob, after Mayor Frey and Gov. Waltz and the Star Tribune called it murder, who do you believe should conduct the investigation? Secondly, if it goes to trial, should Frey and Waltz win and it should be held in Minneapolis? But more so, should he be charged?
Yes, both Mayor Frey and Gov. Waltz made ill advised statements. I agree. If indicted by the state of MN, the officer's attorneys will surely file for a change of venue. It might be granted.
Your and Bernie's (and also Mark Twain's) notions notwithstanding, potential jurors are screened VERY carefully by the presiding judge and by the attorneys. Sometimes jurors are excused for cause - e.g. they cop an attitude, they know a witness, etc. Attorneys are also given a certain number of preemptory challenges, where they can excuse a potential juror without the atty giving a reason. For the case involving the officer, the judge would probably take great measures to see that the jury selection is thorough and that the officer gets a fair trial so a conviction would not be overturned on appeal.
As I recall 47% of MN's voters voted for Pres. Trump. What about the qualified voters who didn't vote for POTUS.? Are all these people haters? You and Bernie look at this red/blue state thing from 30,000 feet. Of course, all you two see is red or blue. But when you're in the weeds, as the courts are, there's a mixture of colors and a lot of grey. And remember, probably most people of any affiliation can be fair to all sides in a courtroom setting. The zealots are in the minority even in states like MN. They're typically excused for cause in trials having political overtones
The bottom line question to a potential juror is: If seated, can you and will you put whatever predispositions and ideas you have to one side and listen to the evidence presented, the arguments of both sides and apply the facts based on the evidence to the jury instructions of the court. Some can't or won't and they're usually weeded out. I've spoken to jurors after trials. The take their responsibility very seriously. In political trials jurors have reported that they didn't even know the political inclinations of their fellow jurors. Is the system perfect? Of course not! Nothing is perfect.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you want the feds to have exclusive jurisdiction??????? Tell me No. The statements of Sec. Noem, Pres Trump and VP Vance are at least equally prejudicial to the statements made by Waltz and Frey. If the feds do investigate the shooting, the investigators probably will be under tremendous pressure to exonerate him. Even if indicted by the feds, can you imagine Sec. Bondi's DOJ actually prosecuting him? Come on, man!
I've heard that the DOJ refuses to investigate the officer and that, as a result, several DOJ attorneys quit. They were scheduled to retire later on, but they immediately left the DOJ in protest. I haven't yet confirmed this.
Let me just add, remember the quote Nixon made on Airforce one about Charles Manson? The press obliterated him for saying that. How is our press responding today?
Pres. Nixon made the statement during the Manson trial, maybe even during deliberations. I'm almost certain that the judge denied a motion for a mistrial.
At night, when you're in your-long john thermal underwear with your teeth chattering and sipping your bourbon, you might read Helter Skelter. It was about the Manson trial and was written by Vince Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson "family." It's well written and an easy read and it's very informative.
Here's the quote from Mark Twain's Rough'n It regarding jury trial. It's a classic, but classically wrong, at least in today's nation. Maybe it had more credence back then.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
“Have you heard of this homicide?”
“Yes.”
“Have you held conversations upon the subject?”
“Yes.”
“Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?”
“Yes.”
“Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?”
“Yes.”
“We do not want you.”
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled—a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?
If Trump were to take over Greenland, I bet his first call to action will be to rename it to Trumpland.
One thing both of you mentioned, and I have been saying for a long time …Trump doesn’t care about anyone … the Republican party, those who work for him, the U.S., or the world, for that matter. He only cares about DJT - 100%. He knows (along with many of us) that he won’t be here forever. He definitely wants to leave his mark … unfortunately, for the above. Aloha, Mike
Great advice Bernie!, and not only for 2026. Fretting over things you can't do anything about--like what Donald Trump says--is a fools game. The Minnesota shooting reminds me about the notion of self defense: If on your daily walk a dog coms at you in an unfriendly way, at what point do you take action? If on a corner an oncoming vehicle is mostly in your lane, what do you do? If an uninvited stranger is in your house, what do you do? The first point is that, assuming my understanding is accurate, if you can articulate that you truly felt your life--or in the dog case bodily harm--was in danger you can take what ever action is necessary to avoid that result. The second point is that time to evaluate options usually doesn't exist. Police are heavily trained regarding these kinds of instances. But the "fear for your life" option applies to them as well as you and I.
I have no idea what may come in the Minnesota shooting incident, and it indeed is a tragedy. But those decisions need to come from officials. Whether you or I agree is of no consequence nor should it be.
Disagree. The more transparent a situation is, the better for everyone. We, all, need to know what actions were taken by authorities, and why. The police. ICE, whomever, work for us, and are paid by us. Aloha, Mike
Agree re: transparency. I was trying to make the point that conclusions drawn by casual or even serious observers of information provided by TV has no legitimate claim to accuracy because not all the information is available. The other point I was trying to make is that cops are entitled to the same "fear of life" position that you and I have. Thanks for the comment Mike. al
There is no end in sight until the crash and burn, unfortunately no one will retreat into their corners but after the climax -- whatever that may be, only God knows.
How about this. Next January, all the Maganoids in congress get on board with the Dems for impeaching and convicting Trump. This is a win for everyone. It gets Trump publicity like no other president and allows him to be even more outrageous and be the biggest (best) victim in US history. It gets the Dems what they want-Trump gone. President Vance can get all kinds of behind-the-scenes instructions from Trump and then campaign as an incumbent. And Republicans can officially rid themselves of Trump.
RE: the MN shooting. The legal standard is not only would reasonable officer think he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm. If the answer is yes, then the question become was there a reasonable alternative.
To answer the first question the officer's state of mind is not relevant. The question is answered by fact finding and analyzing the facts. Incidentally, I tend to think that a reasonable officer would believe he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm.
On the other hand, I tend to think there was a reasonable alternative to shooting. Since the Officer in question had time to draw his gun and then shoot the driver (I think it was) twice AND ONLY THEN step out of the way of the vehicle, he certainly had time to SIMPLY step out of the way of the vehicle WITHOUT drawing his gun and shooting the driver twice. This seems like a no-brainer, but I'll wait until there's a full and fair investigation, if it ever happens.
The only wiggle room I think the officer might have is if he can show that he had inadequate training. Maybe.
Look, I'm not an ideologue. I said repeatedly that the lady should have exited the vehicle. I've also said, however, that the officer was STUPID to get in front of the car. But the facts remains that the officer was in front of the car and the lady did back up then move forward. And that's where the legal analysis begins.
"To answer the first question the officer's state of mind is not relevant. The question is answered by fact finding and analyzing the facts. Incidentally, I tend to think that a reasonable officer would believe he was in danger of death or serious bodily harm."
Bob, after Mayor Frey and Gov. Waltz and the Star Tribune called it murder, who do you believe should conduct the investigation? Secondly, if it goes to trial, should Frey and Waltz win and it should be held in Minneapolis? But more so, should he be charged?
Yes, both Mayor Frey and Gov. Waltz made ill advised statements. I agree. If indicted by the state of MN, the officer's attorneys will surely file for a change of venue. It might be granted.
Your and Bernie's (and also Mark Twain's) notions notwithstanding, potential jurors are screened VERY carefully by the presiding judge and by the attorneys. Sometimes jurors are excused for cause - e.g. they cop an attitude, they know a witness, etc. Attorneys are also given a certain number of preemptory challenges, where they can excuse a potential juror without the atty giving a reason. For the case involving the officer, the judge would probably take great measures to see that the jury selection is thorough and that the officer gets a fair trial so a conviction would not be overturned on appeal.
As I recall 47% of MN's voters voted for Pres. Trump. What about the qualified voters who didn't vote for POTUS.? Are all these people haters? You and Bernie look at this red/blue state thing from 30,000 feet. Of course, all you two see is red or blue. But when you're in the weeds, as the courts are, there's a mixture of colors and a lot of grey. And remember, probably most people of any affiliation can be fair to all sides in a courtroom setting. The zealots are in the minority even in states like MN. They're typically excused for cause in trials having political overtones
The bottom line question to a potential juror is: If seated, can you and will you put whatever predispositions and ideas you have to one side and listen to the evidence presented, the arguments of both sides and apply the facts based on the evidence to the jury instructions of the court. Some can't or won't and they're usually weeded out. I've spoken to jurors after trials. The take their responsibility very seriously. In political trials jurors have reported that they didn't even know the political inclinations of their fellow jurors. Is the system perfect? Of course not! Nothing is perfect.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you want the feds to have exclusive jurisdiction??????? Tell me No. The statements of Sec. Noem, Pres Trump and VP Vance are at least equally prejudicial to the statements made by Waltz and Frey. If the feds do investigate the shooting, the investigators probably will be under tremendous pressure to exonerate him. Even if indicted by the feds, can you imagine Sec. Bondi's DOJ actually prosecuting him? Come on, man!
I've heard that the DOJ refuses to investigate the officer and that, as a result, several DOJ attorneys quit. They were scheduled to retire later on, but they immediately left the DOJ in protest. I haven't yet confirmed this.
Let me just add, remember the quote Nixon made on Airforce one about Charles Manson? The press obliterated him for saying that. How is our press responding today?
The press is combat fatigued.
Pres. Nixon made the statement during the Manson trial, maybe even during deliberations. I'm almost certain that the judge denied a motion for a mistrial.
At night, when you're in your-long john thermal underwear with your teeth chattering and sipping your bourbon, you might read Helter Skelter. It was about the Manson trial and was written by Vince Bugliosi, who prosecuted the Manson "family." It's well written and an easy read and it's very informative.
I read it years ago. A great book. I suggest reading They lied by Liz Collins. Great read.
Here's the quote from Mark Twain's Rough'n It regarding jury trial. It's a classic, but classically wrong, at least in today's nation. Maybe it had more credence back then.
I remember one of those sorrowful farces, in Virginia, which we call a jury trial. A noted desperado killed Mr. B., a good citizen, in the most wanton and cold-blooded way. Of course the papers were full of it, and all men capable of reading, read about it. And of course all men not deaf and dumb and idiotic, talked about it. A jury-list was made out, and Mr. B. L., a prominent banker and a valued citizen, was questioned precisely as he would have been questioned in any court in America:
“Have you heard of this homicide?”
“Yes.”
“Have you held conversations upon the subject?”
“Yes.”
“Have you formed or expressed opinions about it?”
“Yes.”
“Have you read the newspaper accounts of it?”
“Yes.”
“We do not want you.”
A minister, intelligent, esteemed, and greatly respected; a merchant of high character and known probity; a mining superintendent of intelligence and unblemished reputation; a quartz mill owner of excellent standing, were all questioned in the same way, and all set aside. Each said the public talk and the newspaper reports had not so biased his mind but that sworn testimony would overthrow his previously formed opinions and enable him to render a verdict without prejudice and in accordance with the facts. But of course such men could not be trusted with the case. Ignoramuses alone could mete out unsullied justice.
When the peremptory challenges were all exhausted, a jury of twelve men was impaneled—a jury who swore they had neither heard, read, talked about nor expressed an opinion concerning a murder which the very cattle in the corrals, the Indians in the sage-brush and the stones in the streets were cognizant of! It was a jury composed of two desperadoes, two low beer-house politicians, three bar-keepers, two ranchmen who could not read, and three dull, stupid, human donkeys! It actually came out afterward, that one of these latter thought that incest and arson were the same thing.
The verdict rendered by this jury was, Not Guilty. What else could one expect?