Pasadena Officer Shot by Fellow Officer During "Horseplay," Chief Says PASADENA, Calif. — The Pasadena Police Department has released a Critical Incident Video concerning an officer-involved shooting that occurred on September 7, 2025, inside the department's parking structure at 240 Ramona Street in Pasadena. The incident resulted in injuries to one Pasadena police officer, who has since recovered. Pasadena Police Chief Gene Harris said the incident involved "unsafe, out-of-policy horseplay involving loaded firearms" between department personnel. Chief Harris stated that one officer was wounded as a result of the shooting and emphasized that the conduct depicted in the video did not reflect the department's standards or expectations. The injured officer was transported for medical treatment and has since recovered from the injuries sustained during the incident. Pasadena police have not publicly identified the officers involved, and no members of the public were injured. The case remains under investigation and review by the Pasadena Police Department and the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. Sources: Pasadena Police Department; City of Pasadena; Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office. #police #cops #crime #policia #polizei #Police_Incidents #CrimeNews

🚨 NEW: The family of the Belfast attempted beheading victim has called for calm "We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country. We depend on them to make our country work. We do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people"

🚨 NEW: No 10 has called for "calm" after a Sudanese man was arrested over an attempted beheading in Belfast “You can see the police acting”

Iliad (Troy) trailer made by Grok Imagine 1.5, which was just released

The richest man in America signed a document that could have gotten him hanged, and when someone sneered that he was safe because no one would know which Charles Carroll to come for, he picked up the pen and told the British exactly where to find him. His name was Charles Carroll, and the colonies were crawling with men who shared it. His own father was Charles Carroll of Annapolis. So when the Declaration of Independence came to him for signing in 1776, a delegate made a cruel little joke. He said Carroll risked nothing by signing. There were so many Charles Carrolls that the King's men would never know which one to hang. Carroll didn't argue. He leaned over the page and added three words to his signature: "of Carrollton." The name of his estate. His address. He was the only signer in the entire room who wrote down where he lived, and he did it on purpose, so that if the British wanted to come hang the traitor, they would know exactly which door to knock on. That is who Charles Carroll of Carrollton was. Here is what makes the moment even sharper. He was not a man with little to lose. He was the single wealthiest man in the thirteen colonies and the largest private landowner among them. While George Washington and John Hancock get talked about as rich men, it was Carroll who topped them all. When he signed, he was wagering the biggest personal fortune in America against a noose. And he was the last man anyone would have expected to be there at all. Carroll was Catholic. In colonial Maryland, a colony founded as a Catholic refuge that had since turned on its own, Catholics could not vote. They could not hold public office. They could not worship in public. The most educated, wealthiest man in America was, in the eyes of the law, a second-class subject barred from the very government he was helping to create. He had spent seventeen years being educated by Jesuits in France and spoke five languages fluently, and back home he still could not legally cast a ballot. So he became the only Catholic to sign the Declaration of Independence, putting his name on a revolution that he hoped would build a country with room for men like him. That was its own enormous bet, made by a man the existing system had already shut out. Then he simply outlived everyone. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams both died on the same astonishing day, July 4, 1826, exactly fifty years after the Declaration. When they were gone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton was the last living signer left on earth. For six more years he was the final human link to that room in Philadelphia, the last hand that had signed, a living relic of the founding that ordinary Americans traveled to see and shake. He finally died in November 1832 at the age of ninety-five, fifty-six years after he wrote his address on a treason document and dared the empire to come find him. The richest man in America. The only Catholic. The last one standing. He had more to lose than any of them, every legal reason to stay quiet, and he signed his full address anyway. We remember the names we were handed in school. We forget the man who made sure his couldn't be mistaken for anyone else's. Which Founding Father do you think history shortchanged the most?

Foreign-born workers have accounted for more than half of U.S. labor force growth since 2007, according to analyses of BLS data.

JUST IN: FBI warns of rising “anti-tech extremism” as opposition to AI & data centers intensifies.

In The Boys finale, Homelander had to look powerless according to Eric Kripke “Yeah, it was really important to us for Homelander to at least experience a little bit of time powerless.” “People have asked me, ‘Well, why don’t you send him out in the world powerless, wouldn’t that be the ultimate punishment?’ “I’m like, it would, until he gets his hands on some more Compound V, and then you’re back to where you started.” “So, he cannot walk out of that room alive, but we can spend time with him powerless to really reveal what everyone’s been saying all season, which is, ‘Take away those powers and you are nothing.’ “And he’s so cowardly and blubbering and pathetic, as are most strong men when you remove their power and they’re and they’re faced with their imminent death, they rarely handle it bravely.”

🇺🇸 A Jewish woman is suing a Whites-only community in Arkansas for discrimination. Michelle Walker accused "Return to the Land" of denying her the right to purchase land "based on her religion, ancestry, and the race of her family members." However, Walker did admit she had no intention of living there, stating, "a good investment is a good investment." Follow: @europa

“Can’t breath” - Police body cam footage shown in court revealed the moment officers arrested 18-year-old Henry Nowak shortly before his death. Southampton Crown Court heard officers found Mr Nowak leaning against a house wall in Belmont Road, supported by the defendant’s father. The defendant's father said: “He keeps dropping down, so I am just trying to keep him up.” Mr Nowak can be heard saying “can’t breathe.” Police put handcuffs on Mr Nowak, who was lying on his side, telling officers he had been stabbed and that he could not breathe. The officer told Mr Nowak that he was under arrest for suspicion of assault. Mr Nowak repeated that he had been stabbed. A male voice said: “I don’t think you have, mate.” The video cuts out when CPR starts, and in its place, a transcript was read by Neil King, prosecuting, and the officer in the case. One officer said: "He is not unconscious, mate, he isn't breathing." Mr Nowak was pronounced dead at 12.37am despite the efforts of police, paramedics and a doctor who was flown to the scene by helicopter. The video ended when CPR began, with a transcript read to the court instead. Mr Nowak was later pronounced dead at 12:37am despite efforts from police, paramedics and an airlifted doctor. Vickrum Singh Digwa, 23, of St Denys Road, Southampton denies the charge of murder. Source: Daily Echo

WHAT A GREAT DAY FOR DALTON EATHERLY! TLDR: The State's case against Eatherly appears to be utterly lacking in ANY LEGAL MERIT WHATEVER, based upon what appears to be the official Affidavit of Complaint just made public (attached). This in a case in which the State's BURDEN is proof of guilt, and disproof of self-defense, beyond ANY REASONABLE DOUBT. All of it: So, it appears the affidavit of complaint against Dalton "Chud the Builder" Eatherly has been made public, and the contents will ABSOLUTELY SHOCK many of you. FIRST SHOCKER: THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD ABOUT DALTON HAVING UTTERED ANY RACIAL SLUR TOWARDS JOSHUA FOX WHATEVER, SO AS TO HAVE PROVOKED THE FIGHT AND THUS TO HAVE LOST THE LEGAL JUSTIFICATION OF SELF-DEFENSE. NOT. ONE. WORD. That was Dalton's biggest potential vulnerability on self-defense, and we can now be confident that we can put that concern to rest. But it gets even BETTER for Dalton. SECOND SHOCKER: Even if self-defense IS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED, the Affidavit of Complaint fails to present ANY evidence-based narrative that Dalton has committed ANY CRIME WHATEVER. (But, of course, self-defense WILL be raised, only further buttressing Dalton's legal position.) Specifically, there's literally not a SINGLE WORD in this Affidavit of Complaint that describes ANY criminal conduct whatever. I've embedded the Affidavit in my possession, but for purposes of succinctness, the relevant portions reads: "... Dalton Eatherly and Joshua Fox engaged in a verbal altercation in front of the Montgomery County Courthouse." This is not a crime, unless it's merely the misdemeanor of disorderly conduct, which would apply equally to both Eatherly AND Foxx. And in any case Eatherly has not been charged with disorderly conduct (nor Fox, of course). "During this verbal altercation, Mr. Eatherly turned his body in a bladed stance towards Mr. Fox ..." There's nothing unlawful about taking a defensive stance when dealing with an angry antagonist. Certainly Eatherly is not charged with the "crime" of "taking a bladed stance." "... and reached for his firearm located in his right jacket pocket." Again, there's nothing unlawful about reaching for a firearm in one's pocket in preparation for possible necessary self-defense. Note that Eatherly is not charged with the "crime" of "reaching for a firearm in located in his right jacket pocket." "Thereafter, a physical altercation ensued." Note the passive voice. The "altercation ensued." There's no claim that EATHERLY initiated the "altercation." Indeed, if anything, to the extent the affidavit has detailed Eatherly's conduct, the absence of any representation of his conduct to indicate that it was EATHERLY who initiated the altercation, we can only infer that it was instead FOX who initiated the altercation. This would, of course, make Eatherly the VICTIM of Fox's unlawful attack upon him. The next paragraph: "Mr. Eatherly discharged his firearm, striking Mr. Fox multiple times." There's nothing inherently unlawful about discharging a firearm and shooting someone multiple times. Thousands of shootings that fit this description occur every year, and qualify as perfectly lawful self-defense. Of course, now self-defense need actually be put on the table. Then there's a discussion of Fox being flown to a hospital, followed by: "In addition, at the time shots were fired, there were several innocent bystanders in the area. Surveillance video fo the incident shows a ricocheting projectile hitting nearby walls." Again, there is nothing inherently unlawful about firing shots that miss the intended target. Police involved in lawful shootings of suspects routinely miss about 70% of the shots fired. Those shots ALSO go flying about the neighborhood until they hit something. None of that is a crime, absent evidence of recklessness--and the affidavit provides no statement of recklessness. Indeed, not a word of recklessness. Note that if the shots were fired in lawful self-defense, as a matter of law they were not fired recklessly. I would also note that there's not a word in this affidavit that even contests, much less contradicts, even a single legal element of Dalton's anticipated claim of self-defense. Not Innocence, not Imminence, not Proportionality, not Avoidance, and Not Reasonableness. Not a single element. Not a word of it. If this were a civil case, I would argue that this complaint fails to state a cause of action. Indeed, it's hard to recall the last time I saw an Affidavit of Complaint so utterly lacking in legal substance whatever. At this point I have to say that I've never felt more positive about Dalton Eatherly's claim of self-defense, at least based upon the representations of this apparently official "Affidavit of Complaint." If these facts provided in this Affidavit of Complaint are all the State of Tennessee has on which to prosecute Dalton on the attempted murder, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, and malicious firearms possession charges brought against him, I simply don't see any prospect to any reasonable degree of legal certainty of prosecutors securing a conviction on any of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt on the legal merits. HEY! IF YOU LIKE THIS KIND OF USE-OF-FORCE LEGAL ANALYSIS, and would like to know more about how to be HARD TO CONVICT if YOU are ever compelled to defend yourself, your family, or your property against criminal predation, consider picking up a FREE copy of my best-selling plain-English book, "The Law of Self-Defense: Principles" (we only ask that you cover the S&H). lawofselfdefense.com/FREEBOO… @AmiriKing @ArchetypeTheory @JackPosobiec @DLoesch @Timcast @TheOfficerTatum @MyronGainesX @TateTheTalisman

The most consequential Republican primary for Israel is happening in Kentucky haaretz.com/us-news/2026-05-…

A peer-reviewed paper published last year in the journal Bioethics by two professors at Western Michigan University School of Medicine argues that it is "morally obligatory" to genetically engineer ticks to spread alpha-gal syndrome, a permanent condition that makes you violently allergic to red meat. The paper is called "Beneficial Bloodsucking." Their argument: if eating meat is morally wrong, then preventing the spread of a disease that forces people to stop eating meat is also morally wrong. Scientists should gene-edit lone star ticks to enhance their ability to carry alpha-gal syndrome and expand their range into urban environments to infect more people. They call this a "moral bioenhancer." They frame releasing genetically modified disease-carrying ticks as a "vaccination" that only "infringes" on your bodily autonomy rather than "violating" it. The distinction, apparently, is that a tick bit you instead of a government official holding you down. Alpha-gal syndrome is not mild. The CDC estimates up to 450,000 Americans are already affected. Cases have surged 100-fold in the last decade. Symptoms include anaphylaxis. There is no cure. Alpha-gal cases are exploding across the United States. The lone star tick's range is expanding far beyond its historical territory. And two academics at a medical school published a paper arguing this is a good thing that should be accelerated. At what point do we stop treating papers like this as fringe academic exercises and start asking whether anyone is already acting on them?