China & Chinese Shenanigans

[busdriver]

On 1/25/2024 at 6:04 AM, ClearedHot said:

I would balance his comments with and the lose of control predictions with the reality of having a brutal dictator running the show, one who is reluctant to give up power and will take actions that may worsen the conditions of the population if it allows him to remain in control.  The breaking point others have predicted is all predicated upon the people rising up, and we have seen how that has gone in China in the past.

Something is happening in China .......With this and other actions Jinping is now in an echo chamber of his own thoughts and words and we've seen what has happened in the past when a single person has that much power.

CH, I would offer this perspective: I think the entire China collapse hypothesis is probably better scoped as: China as a rising/risen global power is done.  So I don't think it is dependent on a popular uprising, just a withering.  Not saying the CCP will become North Korea, but that's a halfway decent example of withering while maintaining control.

I tend to agree with you that Xi is more dangerous as he gets backed into a corner/feels control slipping though.  The next decade is going to be interesting.

 

[ClearedHot]

12 hours ago, busdriver said:

CH, I would offer this perspective: I think the entire China collapse hypothesis is probably better scoped as: China as a rising/risen global power is done.  So I don't think it is dependent on a popular uprising, just a withering.  Not saying the CCP will become North Korea, but that's a halfway decent example of withering while maintaining control.

I tend to agree with you that Xi is more dangerous as he gets backed into a corner/feels control slipping though.  The next decade is going to be interesting.

 

Bus - I would like to agree but history has repeatedly proven otherwise.  In short, China is likely to have a LOT of young disgruntled men who cant find jobs or women.  Everytime that has happened in past history leaders have used war to focus the anger elsewhere and cull the herd.  I hope I am wrong.

[busdriver]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Bus - I would like to agree but history has repeatedly proven otherwise.  In short, China is likely to have a LOT of young disgruntled men who cant find jobs or women.  Everytime that has happened in past history leaders have used war to focus the anger elsewhere and cull the herd.  I hope I am wrong.

I wasn't clear then.  I agree.  I think the short term is quite dangerous, a starving predators being aggressive sort of thing.

[nsplayr]

On 1/25/2024 at 11:05 AM, Lawman said:

Unfortunately when you look at EV tech adoption our top level policy makers look to be hurtling cash into the sinking ship and ignoring our own industries that we will need in the immediate future. To them geopolitics comes in a distant 2nd when matched against climate interventionist vanity projects.

I have owned three EVs, all of which were/are great vehicles:

• One was made in Germany
  • Plus production of that model now takes place in Tennessee
• One was made in Illinois
• One was made in California

WTF are you talking about? China does make a lot of EVs (think BYD), but almost none of them are sold in the United States.

Edited January 30 by nsplayr

[FourFans]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

China does make a lot of EVs (think BYD), but almost none of them are sold in the United States.

...and all of which are coal powered.

[Lawman]

I have owned three EVs, all of which were/are great vehicles:

• One was made in Germany
  • Plus production of that model now takes place in Tennessee
• One was made in Illinois
• One was made in California

WTF are you talking about? China does make a lot of EVs (think BYD), but almost none of them are sold in the United States.

They were final assembled in those locations.

Look up the supply chain of EV battery production (or solar panels for that matter) and see where the middle point takes place after minerals extraction.

China has positioned its self where ~85% of the worlds Lithium and Nickle battery production has to flow through it. You know what their industrial thermal requirements are powered by? F’ing Coal. And most of it can’t be simply offloaded to Nuclear or cleaner green power because it’s not just a matter of Kw generation, it’s about temperature for productions.

And as the world has massively upscaled demand for more EV tech components they have only been able to match that upscale with more coal. It’s why for all the carbon we’ve reduced in the US and Europe they increased 5 fold.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skitzo]

They also produce 80% of solar panels, 40% of all wind turbines and 90% of all rare earth elements used in EV production.

North American EV production is est at 1.4M in 2028, China produced 3.3M in 2020.

Source: Kevin Rudd, The Avoidable War

Chinese Teslas are being sold in Canada.

BL: China is profiting from global desires to reduce Climate Change while occupying the distinct advantage of a country whose own economic rise has been on the back of the environment Green Energy consumers are looking to help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

I’m sure these are all poor, tired, huddle masses yearning to be free and not any connection to the CCP and their ideas.

The landowner (legal immigrant from Yugoslavia) who got arrested for shooting his gun in the air and the lady who speaks Spanish and says she doesn’t even run into a single Spanish speaker some days is mind blowing.

Edited February 6 by Danger41

[Biff_T]

On 2/5/2024 at 8:57 PM, Danger41 said:

The landowner (legal immigrant from Yugoslavia) who got arrested for shooting his gun in the air and the lady who speaks Spanish and says she doesn’t even run into a single Spanish speaker some days is mind blowing.

 

They cant arrest me if I shoot the cops too.  They aren't allowed on your property without a warrant.   I'm  for real, government overreach is happening and the only way to stop it is by force.   If you’re a cop, don't be a mindless drone for the government.   You have to say "bullshit" when you're overstepping the law.  

Same with us military folk.  

[Clark Griswold]

They got problems too….

Interesting part on their current naval carrier pilot recruitment process


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Standby]

I love seeing Temu commercials during the Super Bowl…

We will censor our own folks during the great COVID sham, but won’t say no to the CCP for some NFL screen time. 

[Clark Griswold]

Right on cue…

China Tells Hamas Chief It Is ‘Keen on Relations’ in First Meeting Since October 7
https://www.breitbart.com/asia/2024/03/20/china-tells-hamas-chief-it-is-keen-on-relations-in-first-meeting-since-october-7/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Danger41]

Just make sure they bring halal noodles and wonton soup.

[Lawman]

 
They cant arrest me if I shoot the cops too.  They aren't allowed on your property without a warrant.   I'm  for real, government overreach is happening and the only way to stop it is by force.   If you’re a cop, don't be a mindless drone for the government.   You have to say "bullshit" when you're overstepping the law.  
Same with us military folk.  

I’m sorry to thread jack this if it happens, but do you think gunfire is not exigent circumstances?

The exact reference you are responding to involved that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Biff_T]

3 hours ago, Lawman said:

I’m sorry to thread jack this if it happens, but do you think gunfire is not exigent circumstances?

The exact reference you are responding to involved that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The landowner shot his gun in the air and got arrested.   If it is against the law to shoot where he lives then I expect cops to show up.  Arresting the landowner is just funny.  He explained that the illegals were cutting down trees on his property and nobody was doing anything to remedy that.  He shot his gun in the air to warn them and then he was arrested.   It seems like they arrested the wrong people.  

 

Afterthought: I was probably fucked up when I posted the original.  

Edited March 21 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[Lawman]

The landowner shot his gun in the air and got arrested.   If it is against the law to shoot where he lives then I expect cops to show up.  Arresting the landowner is just funny.  He explained that the illegals were cutting down trees on his property and nobody was doing anything to remedy that.  He shot his gun in the air to warn them and then he was arrested.   It seems like they arrested the wrong people.  
 
Afterthought: I was probably ed up when I posted the original.  

Ok just so we are all on the same page here, if you meet anyone recommending warning shots just know that person has no idea what they are talking about legally. They are illegal regardless of where you do them.

Anybody teaching a self defense firearms handling course etc would absolutely tell you warning shots are a good way to get arrested regardless of who started what, they exist nowhere in the escalation of force continuum for personal self defense. If some jackdoodle says otherwise, get your money back and find another class.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

17 minutes ago, Lawman said:

They are illegal regardless of where you do them.

Not quite…

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/03/11/decision-by-liberals-on-ohio-supreme-court-allows-for-warning-shots-to-be-fired-in-self-defense/

[Lawman]

Not quite…
https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/03/11/decision-by-liberals-on-ohio-supreme-court-allows-for-warning-shots-to-be-fired-in-self-defense/

Overturning a conviction based largely on ineffective council and deliberate instruction to the jury is not the same as ruling an action legal. Ohio in particular (where I worked) made great efforts with bill 357 and others to expand CCW and actions covered under it to include things like brandishing as a form of protected force escalation. They deliberately didnt move to expand actions with a firearm that actually involved firing it though.


Again, warning shots are a terrible idea, and will probably net you charges somewhere in the area of criminal menacing to reckless public endangerment which depending on where it happens can get additional mandatory sentencing tagged on usually in the range of years extra because you used a firearm to do it (way to think backing that that one ahead NRA).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

12 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Overturning a conviction based largely on ineffective council and deliberate instruction to the jury is not the same as ruling an action legal. Ohio in particular (where I worked) made great efforts with bill 357 and others to expand CCW and actions covered under it to include things like brandishing as a form of protected force escalation. They deliberately didnt move to expand actions with a firearm that actually involved firing it though.


Again, warning shots are a terrible idea, and will probably net you charges somewhere in the area of criminal menacing to reckless public endangerment which depending on where it happens can get additional mandatory sentencing tagged on usually in the range of years extra because you used a firearm to do it (way to think backing that that one ahead NRA).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ummm, I’m not an attorney, but if the Ohio Supreme Court deemed him firing a warning shot was indeed self defense, then this is how the rest of the state courts are expected to rule in similar cases.  As for whether I agree or disagree that warning shots are a good idea had nothing to do with my post.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis#:~:text=Stare decisis is the doctrine,precedent in making their decisions.

[Lawman]

Ummm, I’m not an attorney, but if the Ohio Supreme Court deemed him firing a warning shot was indeed self defense, then this is how the rest of the state courts are expected to rule in similar cases.  As for whether I agree or disagree that warning shots are a good idea had nothing to do with my post.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis#:~:text=Stare decisis is the doctrine,precedent in making their decisions.

No you’re not a lawyer and that’s not what the court ruled in its opinion.

It ruled that the individual client was incorrectly disallowed to engage in an affirmative defense (self defense) by the judges instruction when the prosecution brought a charge of felonious assault. They overturned the conviction on those grounds.

What they didn’t do was classify warning shot or codify its intent beyond saying that there is no defined distinction of aim proximity for a shot to be classified as self defense, but that only the person needs to be engaged in an active attempt to stop or otherwise impair force being used against them. You’ll notice they didn’t say for example you could fire a warning shot to stop a fight where force that was or wasn’t directly threatening you. They stated the state bringing charges of assault (vs say public menacing or reckless endangerment) they by default allowed the defendant to use self defense to cover the entire incident.

You CAN however use existing Ohio rulings to cover yourself from prosecution in that case would an overzealous DA choose to pursue brandishing or public menacing charges to somebody that for instance pulled a gun to break up a fight. Fire a warning shot in those same circumstances though, you open yourself up to a host of negligence based charges where self defense won’t be allowed to be applied unless you get something like the general immunity protections of the initiating violator bearing culpability.



Now do you just wanna maybe let this one go and stop trying to make warning shots some hill to die on, particularly in a state where one of us practiced actual law enforcement.

And to the wider group, do not for the love of god use the phrase “I fired a warning shot” in an official statement without council present. For the love of Christ just don’t be that guy. Shut up, explain you are waiting for council and give your statement through the guy that gets paid to protect you should you ever have to defend yourself or another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

2 minutes ago, Lawman said:

No you’re not a lawyer and that’s not what the court ruled in its opinion.

It ruled that the individual client was incorrectly disallowed to engage in an affirmative defense (self defense) by the judges instruction when the prosecution brought a charge of felonious assault. They overturned the conviction on those grounds.

What they didn’t do was classify warning shot or codify its intent beyond saying that there is no defined distinction of aim proximity for a shot to be classified as self defense, but that only the person needs to be engaged in an active attempt to stop or otherwise impair force being used against them. You’ll notice they didn’t say for example you could fire a warning shot to stop a fight where force that was or wasn’t directly threatening you. They stated the state bringing charges of assault (vs say public menacing or reckless endangerment) they by default allowed the defendant to use self defense to cover the entire incident.

You CAN however use existing Ohio rulings to cover yourself from prosecution in that case would an overzealous DA choose to pursue brandishing or public menacing charges to somebody that for instance pulled a gun to break up a fight. Fire a warning shot in those same circumstances though, you open yourself up to a host of negligence based charges where self defense won’t be allowed to be applied unless you get something like the general immunity protections of the initiating violator bearing culpability.



Now do you just wanna maybe let this one go and stop trying to make warning shots some hill to die on, particularly in a state where one of us practiced actual law enforcement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Funny…here’s another article where this was written:

In the Court’s lead opinion, Justice Melody Stewart stated that the Ohio self-defense law does not require an intent to harm or kill another, just the “intent to repel or escape force.” Shooting toward another with the intent to stop an aggressor is sufficient to justify a self-defense jury instruction, she concluded.

https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0307/221482.asp

[Lawman]

Funny…here’s another article where this was written:
In the Court’s lead opinion, Justice Melody Stewart stated that the Ohio self-defense law does not require an intent to harm or kill another, just the “intent to repel or escape force.” Shooting toward another with the intent to stop an aggressor is sufficient to justify a self-defense jury instruction, she concluded.
https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0307/221482.asp

Yes if there is anything Lawyers use in their arguments it’s public statements in media you can google and not legal briefs or scholarly articles.

Again, the fact you are trying to use this singular example to defend the idea of warning shot, which still lacks any form of definition in the courts majority opinion, and the original discussion that took us down this rabbit hole was a guy firing a firearm in the air to stop people on his property engaged in no form of assault, they were cutting down trees.

Try finding somebody reputable in any self defense legal circles recommending warning shots… please I dare you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HeloDude]

Just now, Lawman said:

Yes if there is anything Lawyers use in their arguments it’s public statements in media you can google and not legal briefs or scholarly articles.

Again, the fact you are trying to use this singular example to defend the idea of warning shot, which still lacks any form of definition in the courts majority opinion, and the original discussion that took us down this rabbit hole was a guy firing a firearm in the air to stop people on his property engaged in no form of assault, they were cutting down trees.

Try finding somebody reputable in any self defense legal circles recommending warning shots… please I dare you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yeah, why would courts in Ohio care about what the majority opinion of their Supreme Court was regarding this issue?

Also, please tell me exactly where I said that giving a warning shot is a good idea?

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

Ok just so we are all on the same page here, if you meet anyone recommending warning shots just know that person has no idea what they are talking about legally. They are illegal regardless of where you do them.

Anybody teaching a self defense firearms handling course etc would absolutely tell you warning shots are a good way to get arrested regardless of who started what, they exist nowhere in the escalation of force continuum for personal self defense. If some jackdoodle says otherwise, get your money back and find another class.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Helo dude posted the article, but this might be changing based on the Ohio case.

 

Honestly it makes sense, once you have legal justification for self-defense, it really shouldn't matter what you are doing, if it is done as a means of protecting yourself.

 

We are in a new era for the second amendment, thanks to the current Supreme Court. A whole lot of "you should nevers" are going to be reconsidered based on the new focus on the right to arms and self-defense

[Lawman]

Yeah, why would courts in Ohio care about what the majority opinion of their Supreme Court was regarding this issue?
Also, please tell me exactly where I said that giving a warning shot is a good idea?

No you’re saying that the Ohio Supreme Court ruled warning shots legal, which is not at all what they did, but it’s a headline and you won’t let it go.

What they said is that because of the charge the prosecution brought against this particular defendant he should have been allowed and was denied the ability to use an affirmative defense which a jury would have then been instructed to consider and later rule on. None of that was allowed, and the court said you have to essentially offer the opportunity for a defendant to use an affirmative defense in the case of what you are classifying as a “warning shot.” It did not in any way suddenly declare them legal. You will have to under the affirmative threshold convince a jury to then allow for such action to be deemed legal and that would only be under a statue that allows for self defense to be an affirmative defense (you couldn’t just say that for example if you were needlessly/recklessly driving a car through a crowd of people to say you feared for your life).

Because it was a conviction overturned, by legal definition nobody has effectively made an argument that warning shots were legal to use as a codified example of self defense then therefor allowing somebody else to use that as codified justification of their own actions. Until such time as that survives the legal process a warning shot is just as illegal today as it was 2 or 20 years ago, and all you’re now allowed by this ruling is the opportunity to be the first guy to successfully be charged and survive. F’ing great odds.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk