Always trying to learn as I go. What does VPN stand for ? Pictures only.

I like the shirt, but I’ll buy sats instead.

Personal Fitness Challenge Day 49/365 Did my 49 pushups today. N + 1 tomorrow. Big 50.

GM ! Enjoying ☕️ in the AZ sun.

From elsewhere:

The roads had just cleared off. And now more snow. That’s it. I’m going to phoenix

Looks like they proved him right/

The deer are grazing on the only green thing around. You can see the tracks. A couple of years ago, the greenery was down to the ground.

Is it just me, or does anyone else have a similar issue - most calls coming in are labeled as probable spam. I have an iPhone, with ATT service.

𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐒𝐇𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐅𝐅'𝐒 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐑𝐄𝐒𝐏𝐎𝐍𝐒𝐄 𝐓𝐎 𝐀𝐑𝐈𝐙𝐎𝐍𝐀 𝐀𝐓𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐍𝐄𝐘 𝐆𝐄𝐍𝐄𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐊𝐑𝐈𝐒 𝐌𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐓𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐒 𝐎𝐍 𝐒𝐓𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐘𝐎𝐔𝐑 𝐆𝐑𝐎𝐔𝐍𝐃 𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐒 On January 21, Attorney General Kris Mayes participated in an interview with 12News in Phoenix during which she made a series of statements and legal assertions that have caused substantial confusion about the authority of law enforcement officers, the role of federal agents conducting immigration enforcement, and the application of Arizona’s self-defense and so-called “stand your ground” laws. Since that time, and despite significant concern expressed by law enforcement leaders across Arizona, those statements have not been properly clarified. In the interest of public safety, the Arizona Sheriffs’ Association is compelled to make clear that any use of force against law enforcement officers is unlawful and cannot be justified. This is clearly stated in the state’s stand your ground law, A.R.S. 13-419(C) (4)

View Document

For the Attorney General to state otherwise shows a lack of understanding of state law – or much worse, a willful and reckless interpretation of the law. First, the Attorney General does not speak for Arizona law enforcement. Some of the Attorney General’s remarks gave the impression that deadly force against law enforcement could be justified if an individual claims they did not know the person was a law enforcement officer. That implication is incorrect. Arizona law is clear and unambiguous: law enforcement officers are expressly exempt from Arizona’s self-defense and “stand your ground” statutes. Arizona’s justification statutes do not permit the use of physical or deadly force to resist a known or reasonably identifiable law enforcement officer acting in the performance of official duties (A.R.S. §§ 13-404(B)(2) (

13-404 - Justification; selfdefense

13-405 (

13-405 - Justification; use of deadly physical force

13-409 (

13-409 - Justification; use of physical force in law enforcement

While officers are required to make reasonable efforts to identify themselves, individuals bear full responsibility for the decisions they make when using force. The decision to use deadly force carries grave legal consequences. Misjudging that decision will result in lawful use of force by officers in their own self-defense and criminal prosecution, including for resisting arrest or assault on a peace officer (A.R.S. §§ 13-1204

13-1204 - Aggravated assault; classification; definitions

13-2508

13-2508 - Resisting arrest; classification; definition

The Attorney General’s comments were also directed at federal immigration authorities, suggesting that federal officers could face prosecution or violent retaliation from members of the public. Immigration and Customs Enforcement performs lawful, constitutionally authorized law enforcement duties expressly delegated to the federal government by Congress (8 U.S.C. § 1103 (

Result

Federal officers acting within the scope of their authority are entitled to carry out those duties free from threats of violence or unlawful interference. While the tactics and policies of any law enforcement agency may be debated and criticized — activities protected by the First Amendment — the legality of federal immigration enforcement itself is not in question. Disagreements over immigration policy at the highest levels of government must never be directed at the men and women on the ground who are sworn to enforce the law. And any disagreement with the duties or performance of officers have a place in our society – the courtroom. The suggestion from a constitutional office that retaliating against lawful law enforcement officers performing their duties is deeply concerning. Attempts to deter lawful law enforcement officers from carrying out their duties through threats of prosecution or implied violence are inappropriate, dangerous, and must stop. If left uncorrected, such rhetoric risks being misinterpreted or misused in ways that could endanger all law enforcement officers, anywhere, whom we ask to perform an extraordinarily difficult and dangerous job. The Arizona Sheriffs’ Association calls on Attorney General Kris Mayes to clarify her comments and make clear that shooting at a law enforcement officer is never justified. Her statement influences conduct in the real world and carries direct public safety consequences. The Arizona Sheriffs’ Association rejects any suggestion that the use of force against law enforcement officers may be justified. Arizona law does not permit it, and public safety depends on this principle being clearly understood. Arizona Sheriffs’ Association