• 2 Posts
Joined 1 year ago
Cake day: June 21st, 2023


  • Now I’m very curious. It looks like the question revolves around how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved?

    Were you not ‘very curious’ enough to actually look at literally any of the real and active reporting on this before your comment?

    There was no question as to ‘how, exactly, the police got a hold of the ammunition involved’ and it is a core fact among the details of why case was dismissed.

    They even played the officer’s bodycam footage of an early formal interview of the former officer that brought the bullets in as evidence (that the officer on the stand pitifully tried to pretend wasn’t an interview) in which the prosecutor was present. The evidence was intentionally filed under another case number so it wouldn’t be associated with Baldwin’s case (or the Reed case that I believe was ongoing when it was actually brought in). And THEN, cherry on top, they also discovered while looking at the undisclosed bullet evidence in this court, despite the prosecutors claims that the bullets were not associated with the Rust set thus not counted as evidence, that there were matching bullets of the type that were on the Rust set.

    Some link to this as the moment the case fully unraveled: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=28995s

    Where the prosecutor has put herself on the stand and opened herself up to answering defense questions under oath: https://www.youtube.com/live/0VEoEvcJNhE?t=32578s

    It’s among the craziest prosecutorial malfeasance shit I’ve ever seen from a high profile, video recorded court proceeding. One prosecutor resigned and LEFT earlier in the day as things were unraveling, and then the prosecutor that was still there put herself on the stand as-a-prosecution-witness to give testimony about the bullets, which even allowed the defense to question her about witness statements that she called Baldwin a cocksucker, about witness statements that she called Baldwin an arrogant prick, and about witness statements that she would ‘teach him a lesson’. In the context of a lawyer, putting oneself on the witness stand as a lawyer in the case, even as a prosecutor, is mental breakdown levels of personal desperation, even if they want to claim it was an attempt to preserve an appeal of the dismissal.

  • I do try to remain reasonable.

    I was commenting on the garbage decision of the governor to leave the state, rather than the garbage decision of OP to make up or repeat misinformation that it was outrage over a Cruz vacation. I’m with you on avoiding manufactured outrage.

    “It’s not a vacation. He’s there on a planned political trip.” can be seen defense of the governor when you omit the details.

    You didn’t just call out OP’s bad information garbage, you implied, whether intentionally or not, that there was no issue of what the governor was doing.

    That is what compelled my reply.

  • Yes, and I appreciate the scientific method, but applying it with statistics such a singular market research sampling can be dubious because it requires assumptions that aren’t actually validated.

    The more you learn, the more you realize we all have blindspots all overr the place. This result of the provided sample size statistics cannot be proven without iterations, which have not been done.

    The politics of it are chess, while the statistics are just playing tic tac toe while discarding considerations of nuance with a wave of ‘but science’ hand.

  • the distancing thing literally was made up out of nowhere during covid.


    But the practice of “maintaining a greater than usual physical distance” goes back to the 14th century, when ships arriving to Venice during an outbreak of the Black Death were forced to quarantine, or sit at anchor, for 40 days.


    Your mind seems trapped in a alternate reality of conspiracy, you should absolutely seek some therapy with a licensed mental health professional.

    but when you guys pretend that the Mayor of LA wouldnt have gotten covid if she wore a mask

    You are imagining a group of people working against you, and projecting your on religious-like belief against anyone not within your strict bubble of expectations of belief.

    The Mayor of LA needs to wear a mask to reduce the chance of her spreading it further. Wearing a mask when infected is actually the most useful case for masking. You can be infected without knowing it, so wearing the mask to reduce the particle spread even if you are not symptomatic is absolutely a good thing to do. Wearing a mask when not infected, but around other people, is not and was never posited as a guaranteed protection from infection, but from either side of the equation, infected or not, you still end up filtering even some amount of inbound particles when you are breathing with a proper mask.

    Arbitrarily claiming it doesn’t work or didn’t have any measurable difference, especially in the face of linked evidence by actual medical professionals showing it does and it did, demonstrates you are proselytizing belief built with actual misinformation.