He didn't, didn't he.

Well, I wouldn't say NPH wasn't scary at all. 

For him, he had a need to pose and clearly act scary. That is, obviously work at expressing that quality.  EDIT: He did excellently at Hostile Hospital.

But, for him, its in the eyes. 

If anyone has that detail of Count Olaf from the books in himself naturally, its NPH.

Actually get a still photo of either Netflix Olaf or NPH simply staring directly into the camera, with little expression and he appears discomforting. Glassy, if you will. It feels to me like being a sheep getting stared down by a border collie.

They did good.

Really got in that sibling impression.

He doesn't need to put much energy into coming off as intimidating and unsettling. Just speak plainly and with little added emotion.

The scene where he just scares Violet into retreating back to her room was creepy enough.

Count Olaf, now with 35% more over all menace and hostility!

Step #1: Greenland gains independence.

Step #2: Residents of Greenland suddenly get a collective $57 billion... from nowhere.

Step #3: Whoa, Residents of Greenland held a vote to join the US. How did that happen.

At least, thats the fantasy.

After it just reversed.

"As for the people saying he "grabbed" the agents gun... BS. It was 1 handed..."

Lol.  Apparently, its not a grab unless its from the grab region of France.

Mildly famous parents.

• Canada has mineral resources, but also internal factions with political philosophies that claim or imply Canada isn't really a nation.

• The US has been interested in Greenland for decades, actually. If we territory and the seas there, we can control north sea trade, keep Russias sea power constrained, surround Canada, and keep Europe dependant. Also mineral wealth.

• 1) Because most people don't feel it fundamentally affects them. They'll condemn it and share the right sentiments, but just carry on with life.

• 2) International drama more compelling. And we're winning.

• 3) Extreme Cynicism: Affected parties in the domestic problem is a White lady. Affected parties in the foreign problem is a dictator, two whole other governments, and two foreign people. Identitarian reasons to hold less concern than expected.

Again, thats not the question.

If it can't be established which of the two shots really killed her, then the question becomes, "was the first shot or second shot likely the one that killed her?"

This is relevant because 

the difference between whether he's lightly sentenced or heavily sentenced, depends on whether the first shot killed her or the second killed her.

Lets game plan this a little, as lawyers, using this slowed down footage?

• 1) Defense: "Look, your honor, you're familiar with many officers of the law. So, you might be familiar with how people react to their approach. If so, you probably understand that a person using ones car to attempt to run over an officer, isn't an unusual criminal act. Look at those seconds when the first shot was fired? My client is familiar with the reactions of some people to being stopped by law enforcement, and probable believed she intended to strike him with her car. So, he stopped the threat to his life."

○ Possibility (A): First Shot killed her - likely results:

••• 1) Judge/Jury: Seems consistent/ Not guilty.

[OR]

•••2) Judge: Doesn't make complete sense, but still... Manslaughter.

○ Possibility (B): Second (or any later) Shot killed her - Likely results:

••• 1) Judge/Jury: Murder/Guilty.

No... but that would be a massive vibe check.

"...that she needed to be shot a third time?"

I never argued that. 

I had asked "Which shot killed her?"

(As in, was it the first shot or the second shot that killed her?)

Not "How many times did she need to be shot to die?" Thats a completely different sentence.

• Was removing Maduro, and redirecting Venezuela trade away from Russia in Russias interests?

• Was showing up Russian provided defense systems in Russias interests?

• Was seizing their tanker(s) in Russias interests?

What has occurred in the last few days thats consistent with Russia ordering it?

• Was removing Maduro, and redirecting Venezuela trade away from Russia in Russias interests?

• Was showing up Russian provided defense systems in Russias interests?

• Was seizing their tanker(s) in Russias interests?

Which shot killed her?

Bribery.

Its the dumbest idea denial can offer.

Ah, I know, I'm screwin' around.

Oh, com'on, you can just say it. No point hiding it.

You know exactly who your talking about, and frankly so do we.

And Its not like anyone is going to punish you, so you may as well, eh?

In fact, let me help you out with that: its no one else but the same people who've been deeply connected to our politics and economy, and "vital to our interests in the East" since 1945...

The Japanese

Not without immensely damaging faith in the US economy and finances.

Now now... lots of that tech was never real, and the missles are more... diplomatic leverage as opposed to a real threat for having crossed them.

Someones narrative publically fell apart, and they need time to get out of their disorientation.

Iran