Regarding the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, a tort suit faces an extremely small chance of even making it to discovery (i.e., finding out what “actually” happened) because the agent would claim qualified immunity and the case would be dismissed early. The bar to clear to hold any government agent liable for just about anything is ridiculously high.
My understanding of qualified immunity is that it only applies if the government actor was plausibly uncertain whether the action charged was illegal. Murder is unambiguously illegal — the uncertainty was over the defense of self-defense.
The Institute for Justice has successfully defeated claims of qualified immunity in several cases.
Unfortunately, this is a case that is ambiguous, and unless there is an almost exact case parallel, qualified immunity will be granted. IJ does great work, but I think even they would concede this is a loser.
If the difference between Qualified Immunity and not was his second and third shot, within what, a second of the first shot(?), then I don't see that becoming enough ambiguity.
+++ I really wonder why nobody ever does this. Reminds me of the old proposal to create a revolution in the Soviet Union via an airdrop of Sears Roebuck catalogs. (Wouldn't have worked - they would be certain it was false propaganda.)
Re Tesla, they have been offering to license the FSD software for years - no takers so far. I just drove from NH to TX in a Cybertruck - 99% on FSD except where I wanted to go 100 MPH on an empty Texas road. Now it even finds a parking spot and parks by itself without being asked.
Have they been trying to charge for a license? My proposal doesn't cost the car company anything beyond the expense of modifying some models and they can charge buyers for that. The cost is to the buyer, and only if he chooses to use the self driving option.
They've been offering to license the FSD software to other car makers - no takers. Of course anybody using the software will have to either install identical hardware (steering, brakes, power, sensors, computer) or write drivers for whatever hardware they're using. And I think the FSD software is pretty tied to Tesla's AI chip design, so they'd either have to do a lot of work to port it or buy computers from Tesla.
Re airdrop of guns, on further thought I suspect the reason this is never done is that the potential droppers fear their own citizens will get ideas.
I would imagine because the optics could go wrong politically. The Iranian security forces could capture some or many of the firearms and post images of them to humiliate the U.S., making it look like we inadvertently armed our enemies once again, like with ISIS and the Taliban.
The government forces already have guns. If half of our guns go to citizens, half to the security forces, the security forces are no better off than before and the citizens a great deal better off.
I'm reminded of a history story I heard a while back. During some siege lasting several years the city was down to their very last food, including the last pig and some corn. A woman came up with the idea to feed the corn to the pig and then drop the pig off the wall (careful to make it look like an accident) where the sieging forces would see it.
The story goes that when the army saw the pig ripped open to see that they were still feeding it corn, they decided that they were not close to starving the population out and packed up.
A quick Google shows this will do nothing, Iranian private firearms already dwarfs that of the government and by the millions. You would need to airdrop military hardware and the US isn't going to do that shades of stingers to the Taliban with Special Forces to train them. Iran isn't worth supporting an actual insurgency, would be cheaper and easier to just directly regime change at that point if we actually cared. We shouldn't though IMHO, I just don't see any moral responsibility to world policing.
According to what I have found online Iran has restrictive firearms laws. I am seeing references to illegal firearms market. One page shows an ownership rate of 7.3 guns/100.
What is your source for "by the millions"? The 7.3 figure supports it but I don't know how it was calculated or whether it is limited to private ownership.
Seems civilian firearm ownership outnumber the entire military 2:1 and the police 60:1.
Agree with you I'd question the accuracy but a rate of 1:1 wouldn't surprise me. In my experience firearm ownership is pretty common in the Middle East, legal or otherwise.
According to the page I got the 7.3 figure from, that is about a fifth the rate for Canada, a third the rate for the Scandinavian countries, less than half the rate for France or Germany, none of which feel like heavily armed countries.
One source said rural Iranians had guns, urban did not. It is in the cities that mass demonstrations have been happening.
Fair but don't confuse optics with capabilities, i.e. the problem isn't a lack of guns but a will to use them. If even 7.3% the population rose up with disposable plastic sporks, most governments, I'd include Iran and the US in that, would topple. Cue both the end of the Russian Empire and USSR, the serfs did just fine with pitchforks and mutinies. The West shipped in tons and tons of weapons to the Whites, still lost.
I'd also suggest it implies the majority of Iranians don't support the protestors, just your standard middle class kids. I haven't looked at the numbers but I'd be surprised if even 1% of Iranians were protesting and I'd bet the overwhelming majority of the absolute population is against them.
If you want game changers you need to airdrop in real weapons and at that point, we might as well invade or send in special operations to run an insurgency. A 100,000 extra six shooters in a nation which already has millions of firearms isn't doing anything productive, especially without a will to use them, just like now.
There is a big gap between disapproving of a government and being willing to demonstrate against one that is shooting and can be expected to hang protestors. That only one percent of the population were willing to demonstrate does not imply that a majority of the population supports the government.
Also, I think mass demonstrations only happen in cities, where there are lots of people. Being one in a crowd of thousands feels, probably is, much safer than being one in a group of five. So availability of firearms in rural Iran may not matter very much.
It is not proven, nor even obvious, that the agent fired through the driver's side window. Close examination of various videos shows one bullet hole in the windshield, and one in the front of the driver's side mirror, and a hole in the back of the driver's seat. The video(s) show him at least seeming to point the gun at the window but don't seem to show him firing it.
Anyway, 1) agents, cops, etc are taught to continue until the threat is clearly ended, 2) he couldn't know in the few seconds he had that it was ended (she might have aimed the car at others, 3) he didn't even have enough time to know whether his first shot incapacitated her or not, 4) we don't have a coroner's report yet, so we don't know which shot took her life, so 5) we are 'arguing' in the face of a sever lack of evidence of all the useful and/or necessary facts.
The latest story I saw, apparently from the fire department, reported four bullet holes, two in the chest. I am not sure that a shot from in front through the windshield could hit the driver's chest.
I haven't seen much on it. I had a lot of cops as students. Our MPA Program served what they needed in Michigan to advance in rank beyond Sgt. We also had an undergrad Public Safety concentration. In those classes (HR, Org Theory, both "writing intensive", public budgeting, etc) I had a lot of cops and firemen who had years of experience, but had been hired one way or another without a degree.
Anyway, they tend to share stories. They all tend to agree that you should never, ever think that the first story reported is very close to true, and especially not the whole story. They were dubious at first but came to love body cams. I have no idea why DHS doesn't have ICE, BP, and all wearing them.
Anyway, I'm willing to wait to hear a more full report on the incident. I expect both sides are getting at least some of it wrong.
According to the right-wing extremists over at CBS News, USA Today, The Independent and The Hill, the agent in question was hospitalized with internal bleeding, after he wasn't struck by an SUV.
Yes, but we should be careful not to exaggerate. "Internal bleeding" in this context almost certainly means a bruise, and likely not in a life-threatening area. He was likely taken to the hospital as a precaution, or potentially to give reason for the story to be reported in those outlets so the public could talk about it.
Then his injuries would be described as a superficial contusion.
Moreover, if I claim he was “bruised by being struck by vehicle” rather than “suffered internal bleeding when struck by a vehicle” I’m still saying he was struck by a vehicle.
I suspect your measurement of religion would be less likely to mark houses with young children as religious.
Also, in a poor area, it would probably tell you more about the religiousity of those in the upper income groups within that neighborhood. (Decorations aren't free)
Also many Christians frown on nativity scenes sans church in addition to the Christians that don't celebrate it at all publicly in a pompous manner. You aren't going to see a lot of Jehovah Witness, Orthodox Catholics, or Coptic home nativity scenes though might still get the secular decorations.
After watching a couple of videos, I am agnostic about the guilt of the ICE agent. I am not agnostic about Ms. Good -- she richly deserves a Darwin Award.
Since she already has 3 children, 2 of which she lost custody of, evidently due to the behavior of her wife, so she is not eligible for a Darwin Award. She is, however, a winner of the FAFO Ultimate Award.
I don't know, in the personal sense, everyone who reads these comments, so I make some effort to not unnecessarily bother anyone. I'm funny that way. If I offend anyone I want it to be up close and personal, so they know I mean it.
I really hate people who feel a need to correct everyone who doesn't measure up t their standards.
The house layout planner thing is fun ... I seem to recall some sort of algorithmically optimized house design that ended up looking something like a beehive. As I recall, the main reason we don't do it that way is because squares are easier to prefab and get materials for. I wonder at what point that will change.
I saw a builder's "dream house" and know why curved walls won't be common -- nothing fits flush against the walls. This one had a curved hallway, 20-30 feet long, not a flat/square wall in its full length. They hung some pictures on the walls, had a cabinet or two pushed up against the walls, and they all looked extremely stupid.
Bingo. Growing up a friend of mine lived in one of those fashionable dome houses middle age hippies build back in the 70s. I remember that curvature problem well including cleaning complaints (as lots of hard to get to dead space along the walls).
I will admit though the spiral staircase in the middle was cool as a kid but as an adult I question what a giant PITA that would have been to move large furniture up and down.
One of my irreverent thoughts about the pictures they hung was that some were on a trough of the curve, and so steady enough even though they had to be hung from wire and a central pin above the picture. But others were on a crest of the curve and free to flop in a breeze, such as from a/c kicking on or fans (this was near Sacramento CA, where summer days routinely got over 100).
I like spiral stairs and my dream house plans had one, but it was not the main staircase, and that design is never going to be built anyway (it was for a specific piece of land which is no longer available).
It may not help you as a Tesla shareholder, but perhaps comma.ai could help with your long road trips/Honda Odyssey. It is an open source self-driving software, to be added on to newer models of cars. I’m no expert, but I have heard it functions well. Link: https://comma.ai/
I heard about that years ago. I had not realized it is still around. Just as I don't believe in Dr No evil geniusus threatening the world, I don't put much stock in individual geniuses doing what thousands of employees at dozens of companies have failed to do.
I put a comment on the comment thread of his video. He emailed me, suggesting a debate. I responded:
Whether I am an ancap does not strike me as an interesting argument since it seems to hinge on how you define "ancap," as I said in response to a comment on my substack, quoted below. Two more interesting questions would be my critique of Rothbard's economics — nobody so far has responded to it — and your apparent belief that there is a correct version of libertarian law that can be demonstrated to be true, hence should be the basis of the defense of a-c.
My response to someone pointing me at your piece:
---
Thanks. Having listened to a bit over half of it I conclude that his definition of "anarchist" is someone who believes, on moral grounds, that the existence of a state is wrong," and he objects that I offer no moral theory to support my anarchism.
My definition is "someone who, for whatever reason, prefers a stateless society." As I have explained in the past, I have a moral theory but not a very tidy one and do not believe I have good enough arguments to persuade someone to agree with my political views on that basis. I have better arguments for my economics, prefer to argue that a stateless society is superior not only by my values but by the values of most of the people I want to persuade.
For my response to the general argument for philosophy over economics as a defense of libertarian conclusions, see my old debate with George Smith.
I gather that Zulu is a Rothbardian and that he views Rothbard's economics as important for anarchocapitalism. He might want to look at my critique and either change his view or write a rebuttal:
In collecting that trip data for designing a house, asking people to log every trip is unrealistic and unnecessary. Unrealistic because people will put off trips to put off the annoyance of logging. Unnecessary because it's easier for them to wear, for the study's duration, little transponders with which their locations can be continually measured, from which the trip statistics can be calculated.
Re the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, agreed that Ross is unlikely to be convicted. So unlikely that commentators on the right are dismissing the possibility. (Trump could of course pardon him to prevent a delayed prosecution, but that isn't even necessary. If charged he simply gets the case transferred to federal court, which then dismisses it. Source: Robert Barnes.)
The question to the commentators is, is Ms Good's wife (standing at one side of the car and urging Good to "drive, drive, drive!") going to be charged with anything. Andrew Branca (LawOfSelfDefense.com) says she would almost certainly be convicted as an accessory, and there's a good case against her for felony murder (of Good herself).
I believe that Ross could be charged with murder in Minnesota. There is no statute of limitations for murder. The state could wait three years and if Dems win presidency feds could release evidence to the state.
Regarding the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, a tort suit faces an extremely small chance of even making it to discovery (i.e., finding out what “actually” happened) because the agent would claim qualified immunity and the case would be dismissed early. The bar to clear to hold any government agent liable for just about anything is ridiculously high.
My understanding of qualified immunity is that it only applies if the government actor was plausibly uncertain whether the action charged was illegal. Murder is unambiguously illegal — the uncertainty was over the defense of self-defense.
The Institute for Justice has successfully defeated claims of qualified immunity in several cases.
Unfortunately, this is a case that is ambiguous, and unless there is an almost exact case parallel, qualified immunity will be granted. IJ does great work, but I think even they would concede this is a loser.
If the difference between Qualified Immunity and not was his second and third shot, within what, a second of the first shot(?), then I don't see that becoming enough ambiguity.
>Airdrop tens of thousands of firearms
+++ I really wonder why nobody ever does this. Reminds me of the old proposal to create a revolution in the Soviet Union via an airdrop of Sears Roebuck catalogs. (Wouldn't have worked - they would be certain it was false propaganda.)
Re Tesla, they have been offering to license the FSD software for years - no takers so far. I just drove from NH to TX in a Cybertruck - 99% on FSD except where I wanted to go 100 MPH on an empty Texas road. Now it even finds a parking spot and parks by itself without being asked.
Have they been trying to charge for a license? My proposal doesn't cost the car company anything beyond the expense of modifying some models and they can charge buyers for that. The cost is to the buyer, and only if he chooses to use the self driving option.
They've been offering to license the FSD software to other car makers - no takers. Of course anybody using the software will have to either install identical hardware (steering, brakes, power, sensors, computer) or write drivers for whatever hardware they're using. And I think the FSD software is pretty tied to Tesla's AI chip design, so they'd either have to do a lot of work to port it or buy computers from Tesla.
Re airdrop of guns, on further thought I suspect the reason this is never done is that the potential droppers fear their own citizens will get ideas.
Re Tesla licensing FSD: https://electrek.co/2025/11/24/elon-musk-admits-automakers-dont-want-license-tesla-full-self-driving/
(FWIW, the reasons offered in the article are nonsense - the author is stupid. But the facts reported seem correct.)
I would imagine because the optics could go wrong politically. The Iranian security forces could capture some or many of the firearms and post images of them to humiliate the U.S., making it look like we inadvertently armed our enemies once again, like with ISIS and the Taliban.
Yes, we need a way to get them directly to the citizens.
The government forces already have guns. If half of our guns go to citizens, half to the security forces, the security forces are no better off than before and the citizens a great deal better off.
I'm reminded of a history story I heard a while back. During some siege lasting several years the city was down to their very last food, including the last pig and some corn. A woman came up with the idea to feed the corn to the pig and then drop the pig off the wall (careful to make it look like an accident) where the sieging forces would see it.
The story goes that when the army saw the pig ripped open to see that they were still feeding it corn, they decided that they were not close to starving the population out and packed up.
A quick Google shows this will do nothing, Iranian private firearms already dwarfs that of the government and by the millions. You would need to airdrop military hardware and the US isn't going to do that shades of stingers to the Taliban with Special Forces to train them. Iran isn't worth supporting an actual insurgency, would be cheaper and easier to just directly regime change at that point if we actually cared. We shouldn't though IMHO, I just don't see any moral responsibility to world policing.
According to what I have found online Iran has restrictive firearms laws. I am seeing references to illegal firearms market. One page shows an ownership rate of 7.3 guns/100.
What is your source for "by the millions"? The 7.3 figure supports it but I don't know how it was calculated or whether it is limited to private ownership.
I didn't dig deep and in no way attest to the accuracy but:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/gun-ownership-by-country
Seems civilian firearm ownership outnumber the entire military 2:1 and the police 60:1.
Agree with you I'd question the accuracy but a rate of 1:1 wouldn't surprise me. In my experience firearm ownership is pretty common in the Middle East, legal or otherwise.
According to the page I got the 7.3 figure from, that is about a fifth the rate for Canada, a third the rate for the Scandinavian countries, less than half the rate for France or Germany, none of which feel like heavily armed countries.
One source said rural Iranians had guns, urban did not. It is in the cities that mass demonstrations have been happening.
Fair but don't confuse optics with capabilities, i.e. the problem isn't a lack of guns but a will to use them. If even 7.3% the population rose up with disposable plastic sporks, most governments, I'd include Iran and the US in that, would topple. Cue both the end of the Russian Empire and USSR, the serfs did just fine with pitchforks and mutinies. The West shipped in tons and tons of weapons to the Whites, still lost.
I'd also suggest it implies the majority of Iranians don't support the protestors, just your standard middle class kids. I haven't looked at the numbers but I'd be surprised if even 1% of Iranians were protesting and I'd bet the overwhelming majority of the absolute population is against them.
If you want game changers you need to airdrop in real weapons and at that point, we might as well invade or send in special operations to run an insurgency. A 100,000 extra six shooters in a nation which already has millions of firearms isn't doing anything productive, especially without a will to use them, just like now.
There is a big gap between disapproving of a government and being willing to demonstrate against one that is shooting and can be expected to hang protestors. That only one percent of the population were willing to demonstrate does not imply that a majority of the population supports the government.
Also, I think mass demonstrations only happen in cities, where there are lots of people. Being one in a crowd of thousands feels, probably is, much safer than being one in a group of five. So availability of firearms in rural Iran may not matter very much.
I was thinking of rifles, not six-shooters.
Maybe Iran would shoot the planes down.
It is not proven, nor even obvious, that the agent fired through the driver's side window. Close examination of various videos shows one bullet hole in the windshield, and one in the front of the driver's side mirror, and a hole in the back of the driver's seat. The video(s) show him at least seeming to point the gun at the window but don't seem to show him firing it.
Anyway, 1) agents, cops, etc are taught to continue until the threat is clearly ended, 2) he couldn't know in the few seconds he had that it was ended (she might have aimed the car at others, 3) he didn't even have enough time to know whether his first shot incapacitated her or not, 4) we don't have a coroner's report yet, so we don't know which shot took her life, so 5) we are 'arguing' in the face of a sever lack of evidence of all the useful and/or necessary facts.
The latest story I saw, apparently from the fire department, reported four bullet holes, two in the chest. I am not sure that a shot from in front through the windshield could hit the driver's chest.
I haven't seen much on it. I had a lot of cops as students. Our MPA Program served what they needed in Michigan to advance in rank beyond Sgt. We also had an undergrad Public Safety concentration. In those classes (HR, Org Theory, both "writing intensive", public budgeting, etc) I had a lot of cops and firemen who had years of experience, but had been hired one way or another without a degree.
Anyway, they tend to share stories. They all tend to agree that you should never, ever think that the first story reported is very close to true, and especially not the whole story. They were dubious at first but came to love body cams. I have no idea why DHS doesn't have ICE, BP, and all wearing them.
Anyway, I'm willing to wait to hear a more full report on the incident. I expect both sides are getting at least some of it wrong.
Very likely true.
According to the right-wing extremists over at CBS News, USA Today, The Independent and The Hill, the agent in question was hospitalized with internal bleeding, after he wasn't struck by an SUV.
Yes, but we should be careful not to exaggerate. "Internal bleeding" in this context almost certainly means a bruise, and likely not in a life-threatening area. He was likely taken to the hospital as a precaution, or potentially to give reason for the story to be reported in those outlets so the public could talk about it.
Then his injuries would be described as a superficial contusion.
Moreover, if I claim he was “bruised by being struck by vehicle” rather than “suffered internal bleeding when struck by a vehicle” I’m still saying he was struck by a vehicle.
I suspect your measurement of religion would be less likely to mark houses with young children as religious.
Also, in a poor area, it would probably tell you more about the religiousity of those in the upper income groups within that neighborhood. (Decorations aren't free)
Also many Christians frown on nativity scenes sans church in addition to the Christians that don't celebrate it at all publicly in a pompous manner. You aren't going to see a lot of Jehovah Witness, Orthodox Catholics, or Coptic home nativity scenes though might still get the secular decorations.
After watching a couple of videos, I am agnostic about the guilt of the ICE agent. I am not agnostic about Ms. Good -- she richly deserves a Darwin Award.
Since she already has 3 children, 2 of which she lost custody of, evidently due to the behavior of her wife, so she is not eligible for a Darwin Award. She is, however, a winner of the FAFO Ultimate Award.
FAFO?
Eff Around and Find Out
Wouldn't that be EAFO? Sorry snarking there, I really hate people that can't say big boy words like fuck so use euphemisms like a child.
Ty regardless on clarify the acronym though.
I don't know, in the personal sense, everyone who reads these comments, so I make some effort to not unnecessarily bother anyone. I'm funny that way. If I offend anyone I want it to be up close and personal, so they know I mean it.
I really hate people who feel a need to correct everyone who doesn't measure up t their standards.
The house layout planner thing is fun ... I seem to recall some sort of algorithmically optimized house design that ended up looking something like a beehive. As I recall, the main reason we don't do it that way is because squares are easier to prefab and get materials for. I wonder at what point that will change.
I saw a builder's "dream house" and know why curved walls won't be common -- nothing fits flush against the walls. This one had a curved hallway, 20-30 feet long, not a flat/square wall in its full length. They hung some pictures on the walls, had a cabinet or two pushed up against the walls, and they all looked extremely stupid.
Bingo. Growing up a friend of mine lived in one of those fashionable dome houses middle age hippies build back in the 70s. I remember that curvature problem well including cleaning complaints (as lots of hard to get to dead space along the walls).
I will admit though the spiral staircase in the middle was cool as a kid but as an adult I question what a giant PITA that would have been to move large furniture up and down.
One of my irreverent thoughts about the pictures they hung was that some were on a trough of the curve, and so steady enough even though they had to be hung from wire and a central pin above the picture. But others were on a crest of the curve and free to flop in a breeze, such as from a/c kicking on or fans (this was near Sacramento CA, where summer days routinely got over 100).
I like spiral stairs and my dream house plans had one, but it was not the main staircase, and that design is never going to be built anyway (it was for a specific piece of land which is no longer available).
It may not help you as a Tesla shareholder, but perhaps comma.ai could help with your long road trips/Honda Odyssey. It is an open source self-driving software, to be added on to newer models of cars. I’m no expert, but I have heard it functions well. Link: https://comma.ai/
I heard about that years ago. I had not realized it is still around. Just as I don't believe in Dr No evil geniusus threatening the world, I don't put much stock in individual geniuses doing what thousands of employees at dozens of companies have failed to do.
Nice.
ninety million a year should be ninety billion a year.
Is the figure not a count of vehicles (rather than a monetary sum)?
Yes.
Hi David. Have you made an article yet or responded to LiquidZulu's two videos on why you are not an AnCap or Libertarian?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hMnornQEcSs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRA6rLvHARE
I put a comment on the comment thread of his video. He emailed me, suggesting a debate. I responded:
Whether I am an ancap does not strike me as an interesting argument since it seems to hinge on how you define "ancap," as I said in response to a comment on my substack, quoted below. Two more interesting questions would be my critique of Rothbard's economics — nobody so far has responded to it — and your apparent belief that there is a correct version of libertarian law that can be demonstrated to be true, hence should be the basis of the defense of a-c.
My response to someone pointing me at your piece:
---
Thanks. Having listened to a bit over half of it I conclude that his definition of "anarchist" is someone who believes, on moral grounds, that the existence of a state is wrong," and he objects that I offer no moral theory to support my anarchism.
My definition is "someone who, for whatever reason, prefers a stateless society." As I have explained in the past, I have a moral theory but not a very tidy one and do not believe I have good enough arguments to persuade someone to agree with my political views on that basis. I have better arguments for my economics, prefer to argue that a stateless society is superior not only by my values but by the values of most of the people I want to persuade.
For my response to the general argument for philosophy over economics as a defense of libertarian conclusions, see my old debate with George Smith.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9YVqZN9LJk
I gather that Zulu is a Rothbardian and that he views Rothbard's economics as important for anarchocapitalism. He might want to look at my critique and either change his view or write a rebuttal:
https://daviddfriedman.substack.com/p/critique-of-a-version-of-austrian
---
To which I added:
As a general rule I find that arguing in text is more productive than in speeches.
Thank you for that answer. Also, have you read The Sovereign Individual by James Dale Davidson and/or The Network State by Balaji Srinivasan?
I am more persuaded by these arguments of paradigms shifts through new technology that render previous societal norms into moral anachronisms.
I believe this method of arguing is more effective than natural rights arguments, at least for a greater share of the public.
I have read neither of them, have seen descriptions of both.
Your suggestion about Iran is hypocritical and extremely arrogant.
Engaging in armchair economics or game theory without any ethical consideration is simply wrong.
Playing the role of savior and world police, while actively funding genocide and unrest around the world, is morally indefensible.
The United States deserves to experience the same unrest it sponsors globally.
In collecting that trip data for designing a house, asking people to log every trip is unrealistic and unnecessary. Unrealistic because people will put off trips to put off the annoyance of logging. Unnecessary because it's easier for them to wear, for the study's duration, little transponders with which their locations can be continually measured, from which the trip statistics can be calculated.
True.
But that was not an option sixty-some years ago when we were talking about doing it.
Noted.
Re the ICE shooting in Minneapolis, agreed that Ross is unlikely to be convicted. So unlikely that commentators on the right are dismissing the possibility. (Trump could of course pardon him to prevent a delayed prosecution, but that isn't even necessary. If charged he simply gets the case transferred to federal court, which then dismisses it. Source: Robert Barnes.)
The question to the commentators is, is Ms Good's wife (standing at one side of the car and urging Good to "drive, drive, drive!") going to be charged with anything. Andrew Branca (LawOfSelfDefense.com) says she would almost certainly be convicted as an accessory, and there's a good case against her for felony murder (of Good herself).
I believe that Ross could be charged with murder in Minnesota. There is no statute of limitations for murder. The state could wait three years and if Dems win presidency feds could release evidence to the state.