2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

These two have invented a method of getting cats into bags that is so effective it works on any sized cat. "Don't let the cat out of the bag" is a phrase we can now relegate to history.

Impressive.

1
SubaruKayak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thermal IR imagery is independent of ambient illumination since the human face and body is an emitter of thermal energy. The passive nature of the thermal infrared systems lowers their complexity and increases their reliability. The human face and body maintain a constant average temperature of about 36 degrees providing a consistent thermal signature. This is in contrast to the difficulties of face segmentation in the visible spectrum due to physical diversity coupled with lighting, color, and shadow effects. At low resolution, IR images give good results for face recognition.

The FBI parked a drone over Kenosha at 9000ft. You'd have to be a naive idiot to think a little make-up is going to defeat the camera on that thing. If you don't want to be identified, go off grid, leave social media, and wear a face shield.

2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

I've been around the world twice, got the full list of Infantry Vaccines for Stateside, Africa, SE Asia, and the Middle East. I've probably been dosed over 100 times. I've got nothing against the vaccines. It should be available to anyone that requests it.

I'd likely have gotten it at one point or another as my risk assessment evolved. I typically do not get sick. For my age group, it wasn't a pressing matter that demanded immediate attention.

Once I learned the statistics were being inflated, conflated, and in some instances fabricated- I decided to wait until reliable information was made available. That hasn't happened yet.

What has happened is we've learned the vaccine is ineffective in preventing contracting the disease, spreading the disease, and the effect on the severity of symptoms is clinically insignificant.

Compound that with the compulsory demands and it's a 100% sure thing I will never get it. If the vaccine can not protect you from me, then it won't protect me from you. Except in this instance, because the vaccine efficacy is failing, mutations in the virus now have the vaccinated at more of a disadvantage as the mutated strains have evolved to circumvent the marginally effective defensive measures of the original vaccine. There are studies that show frequent vaccinations increase the likelihood of contracting the illness.

I'll take my chances with the immune response that's been honed by a 100,000,000 years of evolution than one rushed through a six week probationary trial with questionable results.

0
SubaruKayak 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's all fake news psy-op bullshit. From Pro-Tranny memes to dooming boomers- it's all shit, all of it.

Just 'Biden' my time till shit really pops off. I thought the jabs for kids would have done it but now I'm not so sure- May be we'll see some republican politicians voice some apprehension once they start mandating the 10th Booster.

1
SubaruKayak 1 point ago +1 / -0

When conversations get to a specific number of replies, the formatting relocates the replies to another page to keep the tabs and spacing consistent with the style of the page. Nothing sinister is afoot.

2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

There's far too many looking for NEOs for something marginally dangerous to remain a secret for very long.

I'm still banking on Wolf-Rayet 104 to bathe the planet in a cataclysmic cloud of violent radiation. WR104 a high probability Type 1b Supernova binary system whose polar axis with a 0-16 degree delineation from Earth. GRBs can last 3-5 seconds for the regular ones, but others have registered as long as 2.5 hours.

Theories regarding the effects of a near Earth GRB vary, but nearly all of them point to an extinction level event.

4
SubaruKayak 4 points ago +4 / -0

SpaceX last week launch the DART (Double Asteroid Redirection Test) to impact on an asteroid in hopes that it's trajectory can be manipulated.

An impact of that magnitude in the Pacific could potentially solve homelessness on the West Coast forever.

11
SubaruKayak 11 points ago +11 / -0

We were at the big cat sanctuary in Tyler, TX. There's a 3ft rail with about a 6ft easement to the more robust security fence.

Dad was taking photos of the lions and leaning over the rail because all the lions were at the back of the enclosure. He dropped the lens cap and casually hopped over the little rail to get it.

While picking it up, we all let out a collective gasp and he turned around to see the lioness about 2ft behind him on the other side of the fence. The 500lb+ cat made absolutely no sound as it moved over a 100ft in the time it took him to reach down and pick up the cap.

The nature documentaries really don't do these creatures justice.

2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

The former cop had pulled out an all black 12 gauge AR Glock 47 Mac 10 with a 45mm Clip. The kid never stood a chance. The first round hit the kid in the head and exploded, cutting him in half.

1
SubaruKayak 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't disagree but the case is complicated and I think the property rights issue is secondary to the primary instigator issue.


If someone is on your property and you ask them to leave and they become aggressive, you are under no obligation to retreat or seek safety. It is well within the property owner's right to return and demand they vacate. It is also well within his right to defend himself and property with 'reasonable' force.

(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.


Texas laws regarding castle defense have modifiers depending on the time of day. That this transpired during daytime changes things. (TX 942.2.A)

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime;


That said, if your ex-wife wants to do a custody transfer at the boyfriend's house and an argument ensues between the you and the ex-wife, the boyfriend can not intervene on her behalf, independent of the property issue.

That is, Ex and Teal arguing, black shirt engaged on her behalf, teal shirt responded to black shirt and black shirt killed him.

Had Black shirt not injected himself, teal shirt would not have to respond to black shirt's overt aggressive behavior. Black shirt escalated the conflict between the Ex-Wife and Teal Shirt Guy, then elevated that conflict when he introduced the firearm and made threats. Black Shirt then assaulted the teal shirt guy by firing a warning shot at Teal Shirt guy's feet. What transpires after is murder.

Lawyers are going to be divided on which parts are legally superior to other parts. This absolutely should go to a Grand Jury and not be relegated to the DA to determine charges.

1
SubaruKayak 1 point ago +1 / -0

Crime rates rise, businesses relocate, less tax is collected so finances are restructured. Services decline more, finances are resumed to previous levels creating debt. Taxes increase. More business and residents depart. Crime rates increase and the process repeats.

No amount of money will fix the schools. Security and stability must be restored to encourage participation. The issues are exacerbated by a lack of honestly and the promotion of policies that remedy immediate concerns but fail to address the long term commitments necessary for recovery. Policies towards policing need to be more aggressive.

Simply put, people do not want to live where police are budgeted to focus on larger organized criminal acts while low level misdemeanor offenses go unprosecuted. These lower crimes, property damage, vandalism, and even littering are what eventually erodes the sense of community necessary to recruit and retain talented individuals.

"Lower your expectations" is not a philosophy for economic prosperity.

1
SubaruKayak 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is the law in Texas. Those criteria must be met. The 2nd part (highlighted text) details what constitutes a breach of peace. The act witnessed must be a felony or a breach and the arrest must be conducted with a 'reasonable' amount of force. That is, you can't just all willy nilly run around pointing guns at people you 'suspect' of committing an offense.

I've made upwards of 200 citizen arrests. Not one of them have I been charged with any crime while doing so. You should take it upon yourself to become intimate with the laws in your state. If you carry, it's absolutely paramount that you know exactly what laws govern the application and escalation of force.

2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would expect more crime as more desperation sets in. The brazen success of gangs in CA and Chicago will entice others for a while. Consequences so far have been benign. After clerks and shoppers were assaulted, cops will have to step up- but at the same time- regular people will do what they must. It'll be bloody until criminals are no longer willing to risk it. We haven't seen roving bands of robbers like we have for quite a while. The solution then were bounty hunters and a posse. Before the Civil War, roving bands from Missouri and Kansas were at war, with an entire town razed before anything of any substance was done to correct it. We'll have to wait and see what happens. There's no shortage of militia nowadays.

The only thing that's protecting the criminals are the cops. If cops stop doing their jobs, the population of criminals will rapidly decline. One well placed round from .300 winmag can stop a riot. People have a tendency to realign their priorities when the shooting starts. Especially when it's not immediately clear where the shots are coming from. 300 meters in an urban environment is hard to pin down. Reports bounce off buildings and lights make finding the muzzle flash problematic. The Dallas BLM shooter got off 12 shots, killing 5 police officers from a parking garage. A trained shooter who knows how to move in that environment (Malvo shooters) can drag it out forever.

So yeah, I think it's heading in that direction. Defund the police will eventually lead to little drug dealers hustling street corners meeting up with a .270 or 30.06 and it'll slow shit down. Hell there might even be a tourism element to it.

4
SubaruKayak 4 points ago +4 / -0

Art. 14.01. OFFENSE WITHIN VIEW. (a) A peace officer or any other person, may, without a warrant, arrest an offender when the offense is committed in his presence or within his view, if the offense is one classed as a felony or as an offense against the public peace.

That's in Texas.

4
SubaruKayak 4 points ago +5 / -1

It is how the law works. They had no authority to act on the evidence.

As for exceptions, name one where video evidence warrants deadly force. I'll wait.


I worked Armed Security/ Loss Prevention for about a decade. Even for shop lifters we see them on video and have to put a guy out there to not only witness theft, but to physically be present when they leave the property. Video, in and of itself, is not enough to make a stop, much less a detention under threat.

5
SubaruKayak 5 points ago +7 / -2

Are you?

If someone told you XXXX did something so you go pull a gun on them and hold them at gunpoint- that's called assault with a deadly weapon.

If they react to your assault and you kill them, that's called murder. If the guy filming your criminal act happens to be the one who told you XXXX did it, the guy filming is guilty of felony murder.

You can't just all willy nilly run around pointing guns at people because you've heard some people may have done some things. You have to have witnessed it yourself- and what you've witnessed must meet or exceed statutes governing the use of deadly force. If you personally do not see the offense- then the cause for escalated force falls flat and the totality of the action is criminal.

1
SubaruKayak 1 point ago +4 / -3

If you are going to detain someone under threat of death, and follow that to it's end, it is absolutely necessary that the original cause to apprehend that person also meet the necessary criteria for the application of deadly force.


From what I understand, neither of any of the convicted observed the jogger committing an offense. They only watched and/or were informed of the content of videos as evidence alluding to a crime. In the absence of observable objective circumstance, there is no probable cause to engage, detain, or act. The jogger is under no obligation to entertain their suspicious delusion. Further, a person under threat of serious bodily injury or death has every right to defend themselves.

The attempt to detain the jogger was not lawful. The threat of deadly force was not warranted. Instead, they chased after the jogger and killed him as he defended himself.

The more correct action would have been to present the evidence of the crimes to law enforcement. They are empowered to conduct investigations and enjoy a very liberal interpretation of qualified immunity.

2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

She can float my boat while I swab her poop deck if you can catch my drift.

3
SubaruKayak 3 points ago +3 / -0

I've had several hours to think about it, and I've watched it probably 2 dozen times now- In context to the totality of events, I think it's murder. May be even 1st Degree.

Ex Wife brought the kid, told ex-hubby kid was there, whatever it was that made him believe the child was there. If What Teal Shirt Guy says is true, ExWife is under obligation through the court to produce the child at a specific time for visitation. The Teal Shirt guy is there by indirect invitation via the ExWife.

Boyfriend injected himself into the situation. He is the aggressor. Black Shirt guy is not party to the conflict between Ex Wife and Teal Shirt Guy. You don't get to start a fight and shoot when you're losing. That isn't how defense works.


I would go one further and add that exwife is party to violence and there's a strong probability she orchestrated this event in hopes to sow chaos. That is, knowingly invited Teal Shirt to that specific spot for the sole purpose of ambushing/ Killing him.


As per the 'law'. I'm sure the court order for visitation stipulates a neutral area to transfer the child. The home of the boyfriend is everything but neutral. I think they set him up, was hoping for a simple assault to use against him in court- boyfriend went way harder than anyone thought he would.

2
SubaruKayak 2 points ago +2 / -0

Teal guy should have sat in his car until a sheriff's deputy or Police Officer arrived.

That black shirt guy only retrieved a firearm after teal refused to vacate the property.

Teal guy attacked black shirt guy stating that he'd take it from him.

I do not believe that teal shirt guy would have used the firearm on black shirt guy.

Teal shirt guy appeared more than able to inflict serious bodily injury to black shirt guy.


I don't like it, but it's self defense.

view more: Next ›