The food item is not impedded "inside" the Cracker Jacks, it is a toy in the box. The Kinder Eggs have the toy fully inside the hollow egg, which is prohibited by US law for whatever reason many years ago...

I'm sure the transaction at the border went something like this:

Officer: I see you have Kinder eggs in your vehicle, did you know they are not allowed in the USA?
Traveller: I was unaware they are prohibited, I just wanted them for my kids because they are really good chocolate.
Officer: Well, we can allow you to return them to Canada to dispose of them or, if we have to process a seizure on them, there is a $500 penalty since they are prohibited by US law.
Traveller: OK, can I walk back to Canada with them to dispose of them instead of paying a penalty. This just seems like a waste of time.
Officer: Sure, people do that all the time.
Traveller: I guess I will know for next time.
Officer: Sorry sir / miss, we only enforce the laws, we do not make them. We can not overlook a law just because someone thinks it should not apply to them. Your congressman would be a good person to talk to if you are not happy with the law.
Traveller: Ok.. grumble...

KOMO should really get their facts straight before the report a story like this. Yes, Kinder eggs are prohibited by US law due to having a non-food item imbedded inside a food item (Cracker Jacks have a toy in the box, not inside the actual popcorn or nuts...) and the Border officers are there to enforce the Laws, they do not make the laws.

Second, I am sure the people did not spend 2 1/2 hours "pleading their case" about the fines. If they were crossing on a weekend, they probably spent 2 hours in the vehicle lineup trying to return from Canada due to the high volume of Canadians going to Costco and then another 1/2 hour inside the facility waiting in line to see an officer.

I'm curious where the $2500 per egg figure came from. The standard fine, as described by US law is $3000 or $5000, depending on the type of violation and, at the border, they usually mitigate that down to $300 or $500 for the entire seizure of the items, not per egg.

It will be interesting to see how well water holds back water. I am not a physics expert but, I believe that sand bags work well because they weigh more (are more dense) by volume. I would think that the "ClimaCover" would possibly move or float away if the water nears the top of the bladder itself.

I hope it works. Better yet, I hope there is no need for it this flood season. I wish all those along the river good luck.

WOW!! PETA sure has gone off the deep end. Guess I can no longer swat insects while BBQing my fish for dinner? Heck, plants have feelings too, I guess we'll all just have to stop eating and let the insects eat us when we die? What about the ethical treatment of humans?

I think they have just earned the Grand Schrammie?? Ken???

Much more effective to go for the kill shot... the knees are a much smaller target to hit.
Police are trained to "shoot to stop", aiming at the central mass to give the best chance of stopping the person. It's not that easy to shoot at a small target in the heat of battle...

You may want to read the article again. It states "They have not confirmed the type of firearm the armed man had." That means he had a firearm, they just have not determined what type yet...
It may or may not even be a real gun but you MUST view it from the officer's perspective. If the officers reasonably believed that the person was armed and dangerous, and the probability of bodily harm or death to them or another innocent person was imminent, they have the authority to use deadly force. The fact that 3 officers fired makes me believe that the criminal had his weapon aimed at the officers and / or made a move that indicated his intention to use force against the officers.