It's amazing how often on BlueSky a polite fact check, with a mainstream source to back it up, results in an immediate block. Blocking objective facts is sad.
62 followers 42 following 2,293 posts
view profile on Bluesky
One is at a riot. The other is on a peaceful street. In one someone trying to flee. The other is someone on the attack. One arrived after being asked hours earlier to help. The other was a cold-blooded premeditated murder. Just saying, there must be a better event to compare to the CEO murder.
I'm not a fan of 17yos walking around with rifles either. That it's legal in Wisconsin is a silly law IMO. That said, nothing Rittenhouse did that night was illegal. The events in Kenosha bear no resemblance to the CEO shooting.
Because one attempted to flee from a person unlawfully attacking him, the same guy who'd threatened to kill him if he found him alone & only shot when cornered, and the other snuck up behind someone who'd never done him or his family any harm & shot him repeatedly in the back without warning.
I'd love to see the quoted tweet, but @annlaabs.bsky.social is blocking just shy of 50K accounts.
Sounds like Norwegian lutefisk. My dad would say, "it's fine if you smother it in butter." As a kid I'd think, why not have a tasty thing that doesn't need to be smothered? Lutefisk: looks bad, smells bad, feels bad & tastes bad. If it made a sound, that sound would be bad.
I really liked the bicycle example. That's the kind of thing my department did. We had a problem with gang assaults at a particular park. We started doing aggressive liquor enforcement there. The problem stopped. We didn't go to peaceful parks & ticket the couple having wine with their picnic.
What is and isn't Broken Windows policing? From interviews I did for "Back from the Brink," I finally compiled the different perspectives about Broken Windows in one place. Really you should read the whole book. Regardless, here is the broken windows part: qualitypolicing.com/broken-windo...
😂
The story is false. The NFL hasn't banned rainbow/pride gear. You can buy it on their website right now. leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...
You can go to the NFL shop & buy all sorts of rainbow gear. www.nflshop.com/dallas-cowbo...
There's no such ban. leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2...
Vice presidents get 6-months of Secret Service protection. Her six months are done, just like Mike Pence's were done in July of 2021. We shouldn't be paying for the Secret Service to follow her on a 58-day book tour. A book she's probably getting around $20M for.
Fun fact, the NG isn't taking LE action. They don't arrest, they just assist LE. If they see a crime in progress, they will detain until LE arrives, just like pretty much any citizen can.
It isn't automatic. They got it for six months after he left office, on the orders of Trump himself. Biden could have rescinded it. He probably should have.
The Indiana State Patrol didn't provide security for Mike Pence when his Secret Service protection ended in July of 2021, why would Kamala Harris need protection from the California Highway Patrol?
DC police are at their lowest staffing level in 50 years. They barely have enough officers for minimum shift coverage. There's nothing unconstitutional about emphasis patrols. We aren't "the most policed Western nation." We have more 👮 than some & fewer than others ourworldindata.org/grapher/poli...
Like most politicians, I agree with some things he does, and disagree with others. There are a long list of people I'd rather won the nomination.
I typically refer to Trump as a toddler with a social media account. My statements in this thread stand on their own. Whether I support him or don't doesn't change the facts.
BTW, if I was making the decision, I would have extended Harris' protection. I would have extended Pence's too. Six months seems too short.
It's an "apples" to "apples" comparison, not a troll. If someone is for/against one, they should be for/against both if they want to be logically consistent.
Hypothetically, if Trump signed an order extending the Secret Service protection for JD Vance, or Trump's family members at the end of his term in 2029, and the next president cancelled that, would you have objected?
You don't need to believe me; you can read the 2008 Former Vice President Protection Act for yourself. www.congress.gov/bill/110th-c...
The expected 7-9 people who didn't get murdered in DC this month would probably think so. LE emphasis patrols work (flooding a high crime area for weeks/months). Most departments don't have the staff to do it anymore. Governor Hochul used 1000 National Guard for the NY subways. 🤷♂️
I'm pretty sure "the petty slug" is an opinion. I'm just stating facts that vice presidents since 2008 get 6 months of Secret Service protection.
Why would she deserve an extension when Mike Pence didn't get one?
The children of presidents don't get Secret Service protection after they leave office unless they're under 16-years-old. Sasha Obama and Barron Trump received protection until they turned 16-years-old. Vice presidents only get protection for 6-months.
Mike Pence's Secret Service protection ended in July 2021 (a month shorter than Harris'). I don't remember you, or anyone else complaining about it. VPs get 6 months of Secret Service protection, in accordance with the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008.
Vice presidents get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, in accordance with the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008. Mike Pence's protection ended in July 2021. I don't remember anyone complaining about it.
I vaguely remember everyone saying the Q-Anon & MAGA folks made all sorts of death threats against Mike Pence. His Secret Service protection ended in July 2021. I don't remember anyone complaining about it.
Vice presidents get Secret Service protection for six months after leaving office, in accordance with the Former Vice President Protection Act of 2008. Mike Pence's protection ended in July 2021. I don't remember anyone complaining about it.
Vice president's only get Secret Service protection for six months (though it can be extended). Mike Pence's ended in July 2021. I don't recall a single person complaining about it.
Shouldn't you mention that this is perfectly normal for former vice presidents? Mike Pence's Secret Service protection ended in July of 2021. I remember zero people complaining about it.
At first glance this move by Trump sounded petty. I assumed vice presidents got lifetime Secret Service protection. Turns out they only get six months (though it can be extended). Mike Pence's protection ended in July 2021. I couldn't find a single article about anyone complaining about it.
By the stats, they're saving Black lives. These are the comparisons of homicides & carjackings in DC from August 11th to 30th for the past three years. Homicides: 2023: 15 2024: 10 2025: 1 Carjackings: 2023: 70 2024: 25 2025: 5
I guess some simple statistics without editorial comment were too much for "Raider" - @iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social Raider: It's FACISM!! 😡 Me: Here are some crime stats for the past 3 years Raider: BLOCK I guess Raider is upset the current DC operation has probably saved 8 or 9 Black lives.
I guess some simple statistics without editorial comment were too much for "Raider" - @iwillnotbesilenced.bsky.social Raider: It's FACISM!! 😡 Me: Here are some crime stats for the past 3 years Raider: BLOCK
I wonder how the crime rates compare in Washington DC for this time period, August 11th-30th, for the last three years. Homicides: 2023: 15 2024: 10 2025: 1 Carjackings: 2023: 70 2024: 25 2025: 5
Zimmerman was pinned to the ground by Martin in what a witness described as a "ground and pound" position, so retreat wasn't really an option. Stand Your Ground didn't apply.
The confusion about SYG & Zimmerman is from the statue he relied upon in his defense 776.012. That statute contains both a pretty standard description of self-defense & it adds you don't have to retreat. Zimmerman never relied on the SYG part, just the standard self-defense part.
It isn't a strawman. A strawman would be misrepresenting your argument to create a simpler argument to argue against. I used an analogy.
There's a Starbucks inside CIA headquarters. If he worked for Starbucks in Minnesota, does that make him a "CIA Contractor?"
Simple question, do 10s of thousands of organizations use the ArcGIS software?
I'm ridiculing the lack of logic. The claim that since the CIA uses the software made by the company he works for, that this somehow makes him a CIA contractor, even though the company provides that same software to 10s of 1000s of other organizations.
ArcGIS is a piece of software, like Micrsoft Word. ArcGIS is used by thousands of government agencies, companies and not for profits. Here are 27K organizations that use it. theirstack.com/en/technolog...
Thousands of organizations use Esri's software, including the CIA, FedEx, the Red Cross, Starbucks, the Nature Conservancy, etc. It's like saying that if he worked at Microsoft, he's CIA because the CIA uses Microsoft Word. It's clown logic.
No, he wasn't. He worked for Esri, a software company. Thousands of organizations use their software, including the CIA, the Red Cross, Starbucks, the Nature Conservancy, FedEx, etc.
He worked for Esri, a software company whose clients included the CIA, the Red Cross, FedEx, The Nature Conservancy, Starbucks, and 1000s of other organizations. The clown logic is: Dad worked for Microsoft The CIA uses Microsoft Word Therefore, Dad is CIA contractor
I would think BWT would be the natural title sponsor for Cadillac.
The shooting of Babbitt falls into the category in LE of "Lawful but Awful." I think that most officers would have tried to grab her and handcuff her. He was twice her size, empty hands, there half a dozen riot cops coming up the stairs behind her, plus more officers down the hall behind Lt. Byrd.
Wall to wall coverage when the "umbrella man" suspect was named, "It was a white supremacist all along!!!! See, we told you!" Zero coverage when it didn't pan out. The only way you know they had the wrong guy is the FBI put the wanted bulletin back up two years later, still trying to identify him.
Looks like "Sammy" deleted the response too. I'll never understand on BlueSky why someone responds, then immediately blocks so the person they're responding to won't actually see the response. Just yelling into the void.
She has a cartoonish idea about what US Stand Your Ground laws say. They don't mean "you can just pop off a shot at somebody who is on your property." The force still has to be reasonable based on the circumstances.
My post is still there, but it is no longer attached to the thread and not visible to those looking at the thread I was responding to. On X, others could still see the entire thread. On X an OP can hide a response, but it activates a "hidden posts" icon that thread readers can click & view them.
If they found my post on a search or on my homepage they can respond, but they won't be able to see the rest of the thread (what I was responding to), just my isolated post.
They'd have to independently find your post like I did. I did a word search, came across your post, saw I was blocked by the person you were talking with, and went to ClearSky to try to piece the thread together.
There was an incident a few days ago when a prominent account was saying an article proved a particular point he was trying to make. If you looked at the replies, everyone agreed with him. People didn't see the dozens of people who pointed out the article said nothing of the sort cuz he blocked them
It does. If I post "The world is flat," and you respond with a source showing the world isn't flat, if I block you, no one sees your factual response to me. The only way they see it is if they go to your account & pull up your replies. They wouldn't know which account to go to to even look.
Looked like an interesting convo. Had to piece it together on ClearSky because @lupitamofongo.bsky.social had me blocked by some list of supposed "MAGA Trash." Would have liked to respond to her response to your post. The original "white supremacist" umbrella guy turned out to be the wrong guy.
They seem to have gotten a handle on the pornbots. I used to get tons of likes from pornbot accounts seeking engagement but haven't seen that in many months. I just block the ones that clearly are bots, or the ones who just run around calling people racial or ethnic slurs.
I don't know if Rittenhouse was MAGA before the shooting, but he did attend a Trump rally before the shooting. Pretty sure he had posted about it before his socials got wiped.
The usability on X is far superior. The way a "block" on BlueSky rips apart a thread is annoying, plus it blocks others from seeing your comment, not just the blocker. I also find the ridiculous number of people blocking 10s of 1000s of people on BlueSky to make it an extreme echo chamber.
I'm one of the 37.5K people @darlamae.bsky.social has blocked via lists. I'm always amused by the echo chamber on BlueSky. "Some random person designated this account as 'MAAAGGAA' and put it on a list, I must block everyone on the list"
He didn't shoot people he "disagreed with." He shot people who attacked him. If you watch the video from that night (there's hours), you'll see the group Rittenhouse was with was sympathetic to the protestors. All they asked was that they not burn down the business of an Indian immigrant family.
What "Nazi part?" The ADL went through all his social media when he was arrested. There wasn't a single tie to any extremist groups or beliefs. www.adl.org/sites/defaul...
If the world really wants to expel Russia from Ukraine, the only way that's going to happen is if European nations send ground forces there. No amount of financial or military aid will get the job done, unless Putin is ousted. Otherwise, it means a decades long war that may or may not succeed.
There's an entire world to worry about. Ukraine is a part of that. A part that is more of a concern for Europe than the US, just like China is more of a concern for the US than for Europe. The US has consistently spent more on defense. Excuse me if the current complaints fall flat for me.
The US spends more on worldwide defense than any country in NATO with the exception of Poland. Until the past year or two the overwhelming majority of NATO countries didn't pay their required 2%. Ukraine is more of an issue for Europe than the US. China is more important for the US than for Europe.
The US also has more responsibilities. Other than Poland the US still pays a higher percentage of their GDP on defense than any of the other NATO countries (except Estonia which is tied with the US). Europe doesn't have to deal with China. It's expensive.
Since the person can only normally fire one gun at a time, why does it matter if they have one gun, ten guns, or hundreds of guns? If someone wants to own ten guns, or ten cars, or ten of anything that is legal to have, I don't care.
I'm confused. Daniel said Baltic states give more. Your link confirms that Baltic states give more, with Denmark at the top. You two appear to agree with each other. 🤷♂️
I think you need to read Daniel's post again. He said the Baltic countries give more, just like your stats say they do (as a percentage of GDP).
When someone is stabbed or shot, they quite often aren't affected by those wounds for a period of time, sometimes minutes. They continue fighting, so the defender keeps stabbing/shooting until the wounds cause them to stop. /n
If someone breaks into a house (which Breen did), while armed with a deadly weapon (he was), that shows pretty clear intent to harm the occupants or that at minimum he's ready to harm the occupants. /1 www.cbc.ca/news/canada/...
Yet again, a fact block on BlueSky. @solodeveloping.bsky.social posted that suspects pretending to be ICE agents were shot by a homeowner in Texas. A simple, short, polite response with the correct info & a source caused him to block. Now no one can see the correction & his lie persists.
The case was in Houston. The suspects were pretending to be POLICE serving a search warrant, not pretending to be ICE officers. abc13.com/post/homeown...
Kind of hard to run to the police who are behind Rosenbaum, since that would mean going through Rosenbaum. Kind of messes up the whole running away from Rosenbaum part to run towards him. 🤦 bsky.app/profile/sgtw...
No, it isn't. It's an analogy to point out your interpretation of the law is nonsense.
The police line was at 60th & Sheridan, north of Car Source 3. Rosenbaum was chasing Rittenhouse southbound. To run towards the police at that moment would require running towards Rosenbaum. No need to quibble, he did in fact retreat, in the opposite direction. He then ran towards the police.
All of this is on video, from start to finish. /n www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZTD...
The police didn't realize he was the suspect surrendering, because they could still hear gunfire behind him. They ordered him to back away & when he didn't, they pointed guns at him & pepper sprayed him (their testimony). They then drove to the sound of the gunfire, like they're trained to do. /2
"Trying to flee means moving back to where the trained police and sheriff's [sic] were. That's not what he did." That's exactly what he did. He was fleeing towards the police. He reached the police after shooting Grosskreutz. He tried to surrender to the police. /1
By your interpretation, if someone put a gun in your face while you were walking your dog in the park you couldn't defend yourself. You should realize that's a ridiculous interpretation.
You're not reading the law correctly. You aren't only allowed to defend yourself in your home, car or property. Below is the general self-defense law in Wisconsin. The rest of the statute is talking about some specific circumstances that have different rules. They don't change the basic premise.
If he was just looking for an excuse to shoot someone, he wouldn't have tried to flee. He probably would have tried to incite an altercation with someone. He didn't. You don't lose your right to self-defense because you were stupid and went to the ATM in the really bad neighborhood at 2 AM.
There are additional factors in the justification for self-defense that aren't on the shooting video. Rosenbaum had been violent all night, picking fights, starting fires, and making threats. Specifically threats to kill Rittenhouse if he found him alone. Multiple witnesses testified about this.
"He's not a hero." - Never said he was, nor do I think he is "He's not a LEO." - So? You don't need to be an LEO to defend yourself, put out a fire, offer 1st aid, or stand guard "He had ZERO business being there" - Neither you nor I get to decide where someone has business being
He wasn't shot for a plastic bag. That's a nonsense claim people parrot. KR flees from JR JR throws the bag KR turns & points the gun JR ignores the pointed gun & keeps coming KR flees again JR's companion Ziminski fires a pistol KR gets cornered JR catches up & lunges for him & the gun KR shoots
Here he is leaving the Ultimate Gas Station with a fire extinguisher, running towards Car Source 3, about a minute before the shooting.
Here's an annotated version of the footage.
This was a compilation of 3 street level videos & the FBI aerial FLIR video. In the aerial shots you can see Rittenhouse gets cornered in a group of cars with an angry mob on the other side breaking windows. He turns & when Rosenbaum lunges he shoots. There's also a civilian drone video. ⬇️
When you're chasing someone who's fleeing, you're the aggressor, not defending yourself. If Rosenbaum, Huber or Grosskreutz were in fear for their safety, all they had to do was stand still as Rittenhouse ran away or slowly walk in the opposite direction. These are basic rules of self-defense.
I've testified in 1000s of court hearing & trials. There was always water available for at the witness stand. When a witness breaks down on the stand, the judge always asks them if they need a break and usually takes one.
There are more videos of the first shooting, Joseph Rosenbaum, than the other two combined. That shooting was at Car Source 3. In was undisputed at trial that Rittenhouse was carrying a fire extinguisher and going there to put out a car fire in the parking lot.
Yet another example of a BlueSky user, this time @jeffreyrichard.bsky.social, immediately blocking after being shown facts that what they believe is an objective falsehood. The need of many on this site to live in a fact-free bubble never ceases to amaze me. Very sad.
Yet another example of a BlueSky user, this time @jeffreyrichard.bsky.social, immediately blocking after being shown facts that what they believe is an objective falsehood. The need of many on this site to live in a fact-free bubble never ceases to amaze me. Very sad.
Here are six mainstream sources confirming "she drove him there" is a myth. Quit repeating lies. apnews.com/article/fact... www.factcheck.org/2021/11/ritt... www.politifact.com/factchecks/2... factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.... www.chicagotribune.com/2020/11/10/k... www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...
