sp3ctr4l

Mods, if this is too offtopic, or potentially too incendiary a topic, I understand, I just do not know where else to post this.

Further, I fully agree with the sidebar rule here, let us please keep this civil and keep politics out of this to the greatest extent possible.

DISCLAIMER: Please, everyone and anyone, do not consider any of this discussion to be 100% confirmed fact, this is meant for reasoned consideration, not wild speculation nor justifying motivated reasoning of any kind or flavor.

Further: I do not endorse any political views of this guy, but I think his ballistic analysis is worth consideration.

Please at least watch this linked ~20 minute video.

The guy claims to be either a current or former USMC Scout Sniper, and while I cannot confirm this beyond a reasonable doubt... I also do not really have any reason to doubt that he is.

There is also a longer 2 1/2 hour livestream where this guy presumably goes into more detail, which he has linked on his YT vid page.

Essentially, the guy goes through 4 different camera angles.

He explains that the movement of Kirk's shirt is almost certainly not a result of any kind of body armor as is widely being speculated; instead, it is from how Kirk's lapel mic and earpiece and the wire for such were affixed to him.

He shows that the earpiece actually was captured flying off of Kirk's right ear, and that this is what caused the movement of Kirk's shirt.

But also... he believes that the shot did not come from from straight on.

He believes that the shot came from Kirk's right, and he believes that the wound which....featured the 'geyser' of blood coming out of Kirk's neck... he believes this was an exit wound, not an entry wound.

He believes that the entry would was somewhere on the right side of roughly Kirk's jaw, to behind or around his right ear, that the round traversed through Kirk from his right, to his left, and that it likely functionally killed him instantly either by obliteration of the lower brain, or severing of the spinal cord.

He also believes he may have captured a reflection of a muzzle flash, as well as potentially the muzzle flash itself... indicating a shooting position from Kirk's right... and that the currently most popular and widely accepted (?) idea that the shot came from 150 - 200 yards/meters away, basically from nearly directly in front of Kirk... cannot be the case.

Finally, be believes that the caliber used was not 30.06, that the visible wound is simply too small to indicate a 30.06, that it is more likely a lower caliber round.

At least this is inline with ... what I have been able to gather / opinionate based on the published image of what is supposed to be the weapon used in the incident.

Long story short, I think it is more likely that the rifle is not 'an older Mauser in 30.06' as officially described, but instead, more likely to be either a Remington 700 or Ruger American, a model from roughly the 80s - 90s - 00s, and that it is likely to be in caliber .270 or .243.

Hopefully I have linked this correctly, here is the start of a comment chain from myself, in another thread, a few days back, when I attempted to analyze the presented image of the weapon being claimed to be the weapon.

https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/comment/21325405

If you would, please discuss in the most objective manner you are capable of.

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/35891683

I have changed the original title of this post, as it is imo, thanks largely to discussion in this thread, with a lemmyusa mod, unnecessarily incendiary.

Original Title:

"lemmyusa.com is engaging in vote manipulation, suggest defederating unless it is addressed"

Mod Abuse:

https://lemmy.world/modlog/1432313?page=1&actionType=All

The instance has 3 active subs, it's unlikely the admins are not also the mods engaging in this.

Banning anyone who downvotes is a clear attempt to foster a chilling effect on dissenting opinions. The mods and admins of this instance are putting their thumb on the scales in order to make their ideas appear more positively received than they actually are.

Thanks for your attention to this.

I realize that doing a cross post here is... unorthodox, and this doesn't drectly involve my own interactions, and I am technically breaking a number of the rules of this comm...

... but I think this is worth the discussion and consideration of, and potential further investigation from this comm, which essentially functions as a de facto place for discussing things like this.

Further context / info I have been able to gather:

Here is a direct link to their own modlog.

https://lemmyusa.com/modlog

Their dedicated legal page:

https://lemmyusa.com/legal

Their described 'sidebar rules' appear to only be:

We're keeping it simple:

Be thoughtful, act responsibly, and treat others with respect.

No NSFW content.

Everything else seems to be in the Legal / TOS / Privacy Policy section.

My preliminary, most charitable interpretation of mod/admin activity here... is that they can and will essentially ban anyone who posts on their instance and is not a lemmyusa user, as any other user would not have agreed to their TOS.

???

Further, this instance appears to be hosting an account that is impersonating SatansMaggotyCumFart, a fairly well known, mostly parody/dedicated 'bit' account here on lemmy...

The profile description of their version of SMCF claims to be 'the only real profile!', and is using a clearly AI generated avatar/profile pic... and uh, to me at least, it seems very unlikely this is the actual SMCF.

UPDATE:

Ok.

After some conversation in this thread, I should add:

There is, and there was at the time this all started, a rule in the comm that much of these downvote bans took place in, which reads:

'No Serial Downvoting.'

Personally, I find this rather vague.

How many dowmvotes, in what timeframe, across how many comms/comments/posts, etc?

I am also still uncertain to what extent these actually are dedicated, persistent, serial downvoters, vs just a whole lot of randos seeing something on their feed and then downvoting it and moving on.

I get the intent behind trying to stem a mass wave of negativity, nobody likes a wave of mass downvotes and hostile comments...

But on the other hand, there should probably be a bit more clarity and specificity here, less heavy handed actions for less comitted and persistent behavior.

IMO, a balance has to be struck between allowing people to genuienly freely express their opinion via downvoting, but at the same time, there are clearly also cases where people or groups of people basically just downvote all comments or posts from a specific user or in a certain comm or pertaining to a certain topic, etc.

I myself am fairly confident I have managed to attract at least one person who downvotes all my posts/comments on their instance, simply because I am on their shitlist, apparently.

So ideally... we could maybe have a constructive conversation about that.

As to the SatansMaggotyCumFart profile on lemmyusa being an impersonatory account:

We've got one mod from lemmyusa here saying he really isn't sure, and personally blocked him, I think from his own user standpoint, not from the standpoint of himself as a mod.

IMO, the account still strikes me as likely another person, impersonating the actual user... I of course cannot be certain, but the profile still strikes me as very sus.

Finally, I am least personally going to strongly discourage any one reading this from popping in to lemmyusa and going out of your way to downvote every single thing on there simply because it is on that instance.

They are already in more or less lockdown mode, call that a win if you must.

I did not intend nor do I want this very post to act as an attack vector.

UPDATE 2

SatansMaggotyCumFart, the real one, has appeared in this thread and confirmed that the lemmyusa profile is indeed an impersonation, is not them.

Kirk's shooter, Tyler Robinson, has apparently turned himself in, apparently after confessing to his own father (?)

I've tried to capture the relevant bits of this extremely rapidly updating and currently in progress series of events.

9 a.m. EDT

While appearing on Fox and Friends, Trump said “I think, with a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody.”

Trump said authorities acted after receiving a tip from a minister who recognized the suspect from the images released by law enforcement.

The president said he believed the suspect’s father was also involved in arrest, but added that this information was still preliminary and the details could change.

9:15 a.m. EDT

Trump said he would attend a funeral next week for Kirk, “who should not be having a funeral right now,” when asked about his scheduled trip to the U.K. from Sept. 16-18.

9:30 a.m. EDT

The suspect was identified as Tyler Robinson, 22, from Utah, according to multiple reports citing people with knowledge of the investigation.

10:10 a.m. EDT

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox confirmed in a press conference Friday morning that a suspect named Tyler Robinson has been detained.

Apologies for this being a paywalled Forbes article.

Kirk's shooter, Tyler Robinson, has apparently turned himself in, apparently after confessing to his own father (?)

I've tried to capture the relevant bits of this extremely rapidly updating and currently in progress series of events.

9 a.m. EDT

While appearing on Fox and Friends, Trump said “I think, with a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody.”

Trump said authorities acted after receiving a tip from a minister who recognized the suspect from the images released by law enforcement.

The president said he believed the suspect’s father was also involved in arrest, but added that this information was still preliminary and the details could change.

9:15 a.m. EDT

Trump said he would attend a funeral next week for Kirk, “who should not be having a funeral right now,” when asked about his scheduled trip to the U.K. from Sept. 16-18.

9:30 a.m. EDT

The suspect was identified as Tyler Robinson, 22, from Utah, according to multiple reports citing people with knowledge of the investigation.

10:10 a.m. EDT

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox confirmed in a press conference Friday morning that a suspect named Tyler Robinson has been detained.

Apologies for this being a paywalled Forbes article.

Kirk's shooter, Tyler Robinson, has apparently turned himself in, apparently after confessing to his own father (?)

I've tried to capture the relevant bits of this extremely rapidly updating and currently in progress series of events.

9 a.m. EDT

While appearing on Fox and Friends, Trump said “I think, with a high degree of certainty, we have him in custody.”

Trump said authorities acted after receiving a tip from a minister who recognized the suspect from the images released by law enforcement.

The president said he believed the suspect’s father was also involved in arrest, but added that this information was still preliminary and the details could change.

9:15 a.m. EDT

Trump said he would attend a funeral next week for Kirk, “who should not be having a funeral right now,” when asked about his scheduled trip to the U.K. from Sept. 16-18.

9:30 a.m. EDT

The suspect was identified as Tyler Robinson, 22, from Utah, according to multiple reports citing people with knowledge of the investigation.

10:10 a.m. EDT

Utah Gov. Spencer Cox confirmed in a press conference Friday morning that a suspect named Tyler Robinson has been detained.

Apologies for this being a paywalled Forbes article.

Some things just come back around like a boomerang.

Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat, officially introduced new Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

"In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution," Green's articles state.

"President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now usurping congressional war powers."

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Round 3.

Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat, officially introduced new Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

"In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution," Green's articles state.

"President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now usurping congressional war powers."

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Round 3.

Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat, officially introduced new Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

"In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution," Green's articles state.

"President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now usurping congressional war powers."

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Round 3.

Representative Al Green, a Texas Democrat, officially introduced new Articles of Impeachment against President Donald Trump on Tuesday.

"In starting his illegal and unconstitutional war with Iran without the constitutionally mandated consent of Congress or appropriate notice to Congress, President Trump acted in direct violation of the War Powers Clause of the Constitution," Green's articles state.

"President Trump has devolved and continues to devolve American democracy into authoritarianism by disregarding the separation of powers and now usurping congressional war powers."

This is a developing story and will be updated.

Round 3.

Donald Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan said Saturday the administration is planning to send in the National Guard Saturday evening to quell protests in Los Angeles.

“This is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” Homan said on Fox News. He continued: “We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing. We’re gonna bring National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people, and we’re gonna [enforce] the law.”

On Saturday night, following Homan’s on-camera remarks, both national Democratic and Republican figures were scrambling to figure out if he was just mouthing off, or if the federal troops were actually on their way, or just … what the hell was going on.

Two Trump administration officials say they learned about the alleged National Guard plans from journalists such as Rolling Stone’s who had reached out to them on Saturday evening, asking for clarification.

Homan did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

“The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote on Bluesky Saturday evening. “That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”

He added, “LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need. The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

The president can request, but not order, a governor to deploy their state’s National Guard. The governor can refuse the request, and Trump would not be allowed under the Constitution to send National Guard troops to California from other states. However, the Trump administration has previously mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which could allow the president to deploy the U.S. military domestically, federalize the National Guard, and send in troops to quell uprisings or civil disorder.

Editorializing beyond here:

The Insurrectionist invokes the Insurrection Act.

Donald Trump’s “Border Czar” Tom Homan said Saturday the administration is planning to send in the National Guard Saturday evening to quell protests in Los Angeles.

“This is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” Homan said on Fox News. He continued: “We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing. We’re gonna bring National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people, and we’re gonna [enforce] the law.”

On Saturday night, following Homan’s on-camera remarks, both national Democratic and Republican figures were scrambling to figure out if he was just mouthing off, or if the federal troops were actually on their way, or just … what the hell was going on.

Two Trump administration officials say they learned about the alleged National Guard plans from journalists such as Rolling Stone’s who had reached out to them on Saturday evening, asking for clarification.

Homan did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.

“The federal government is moving to take over the California National Guard and deploy 2,000 soldiers,” California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wrote on Bluesky Saturday evening. “That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions.”

He added, “LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need. The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

The president can request, but not order, a governor to deploy their state’s National Guard. The governor can refuse the request, and Trump would not be allowed under the Constitution to send National Guard troops to California from other states. However, the Trump administration has previously mulled invoking the Insurrection Act, which could allow the president to deploy the U.S. military domestically, federalize the National Guard, and send in troops to quell uprisings or civil disorder.

Editorializing beyond here:

The Insurrectionist invokes the Insurrection Act.