In relation to this, thinking about a new community for Political Activism. Calls to action, that kind of thing.

The rules would be super simple:

  1. Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]

  2. Absolutely no calls for violent action.

  3. No links to fundraisers. Too rife for fraud and abuse. Stories about fundraisers would be fine, but no GoFundMes, etc.

Think there's room for PolticalActivism?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -19 points 10 months ago (56 children)

This analogy only works if you assume the conclusion first — that ICE is equivalent to the Gestapo and therefore any force used against them is justified. That’s rhetoric, not analysis. The actual legal question is whether there was an imminent threat at the moment force was used. Nazi analogies don’t answer that, and they don’t substitute for evidence or self-defense law.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 56 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 10 months ago (17 children)

    This analogy only works if you assume the conclusion first — that ICE is equivalent to the Gestapo

    yes, yes they are

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    If we’re going to debate this seriously, let’s focus on specific policies and actions, not just emotional labels.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (15 children)

    spoken like a true politician. have a look at history - something we're taught a lot of in Europe, especially WWII - and ask yourself in what ways ICE isn't going down the Gestapo route. ironic to be about "liberty" when civilians get stripped of their rights for just existing and killed for expressing their opinions

    remember your views when the US eventually turns into a totalitarian state and starts arresting your loved ones because they have opposing views

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    that's a lot of words for not wanting to see or admit that change is a gradual process. ofcourse trumpywumpy won't immediately and aggressively install such kind of police - the backlash would be too immense and he's not THAT stupid (one might think). it starts small and gradually evolves to something worse. from detaining people who are known to not have papers, to detaining and questioning everyone that has a different kind of skin color, to just randomly search houses or raid workplaces, to monitoring phones and communications ... and thus it grows into more gestapo-like territory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    all the things I've mentioned are already happening. but it's no concern to me, because I'm lucky to live in a free democracy that's not being ruled by a wannabe authoritarian. good luck in die Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika and don't forget to add some salt and pepper to the boots you're licking. what's liberty if not blindly following all the rules without question, right?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 10 months ago* (10 children)

    Calling normal enforcement “authoritarian” and adding insults doesn’t make a legal argument. Facts and evidence still matter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    remember that "legal" here means anything trumpy and his strategically appointed puppets decide for themselves what is deemed to be legal. you'd defend invading Greenland and call it legal because your Great Leader wants it to be ...

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Extra judicial killings, unapproved acts of war, extra judicial deportations

    Oops, there ya go. All real things that exist and are documented by ours and several other nations.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Listing charged phrases isn’t the same as proving they apply here. “Extrajudicial killing,” “acts of war,” and “extrajudicial deportation” are specific legal terms with defined elements — intent, authority, jurisdiction, and due process standards. You don’t establish them by assertion; you establish them with findings, rulings, or documented patterns that meet those definitions. Yes, abuses by governments exist and have been documented globally. That doesn’t mean every controversial enforcement action automatically qualifies, nor does it excuse skipping the legal analysis required to reach those conclusions. If you believe those labels apply in this case, the burden is to show how the facts meet the legal criteria — not just that similar abuses have occurred somewhere before. Conflating real historical abuses with an unresolved incident isn’t accountability. It’s shortcutting the argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Hey dipshit the courts he's defying already proved and ruled on it. Nice try. He's openly and illegally defying court orders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Courts can issue rulings and orders, but whether someone is actually defying them — and whether that defiance is “illegal” — is ultimately determined through legal processes and enforcement mechanisms, not social media declarations. Calling it “openly illegal” doesn’t replace due process or evidence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (4 children)

    That's not how it works. Courts don't determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.

    Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.

    Are you stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    You’re misrepresenting how the legal process works. Courts can determine guilt or order compliance, but enforcement and due process are what make a ruling effective. Simply asserting “it’s illegal” on social media doesn’t make it so in practice — it’s still a legal process, not a declaration of opinion. Name-calling doesn’t strengthen your point. If you want to explain how a court ruling has been legally enforced or adjudicated, go ahead — otherwise this is just rhetoric.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    Btw you failed to adequately respond to my previous comment, so here, you may try again:

    That's not how it works. Courts don't determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.

    Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.

    Are you stupid?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (1 child)

    But we aren't simply asserting that it's illegal. There was a court case. It was ruled on. It was defied by the president. It is illegal to defy a court order.

    It's that simple. Do you need me to quote legal codes at you?

    Again. Are you stupid? Rage bait? Probably rage bait.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago

    You’re way oversimplifying the situation. Yes, courts can issue rulings, and failing to comply with a court order can lead to contempt or other enforcement measures. But whether an action constitutes an enforceable violation isn’t automatic — it depends on the specific ruling, the scope of the order, and whether formal enforcement or contempt proceedings have been carried out. Simply saying someone ‘defied the court’ doesn’t make it legally finalized or proven beyond process. If a court formally finds contempt or imposes sanctions, that’s the legally enforceable part. Until then, it’s a matter under investigation or adjudication, not a settled legal fact. Also, name-calling doesn’t make the legal argument stronger — it just obscures the issue. Let’s stick to the actual legal process if we want a meaningful discussion.”

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    Lick the boot harder. I don't think they can see their faces in them quite yet.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] -14 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Ah yes, the classic substitute for an argument.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    It wasn't supposed to be an argument. It was supposed to be an insult.

    If the taste of boot wax gets to be too overpowering, I hear buckshot makes a good mouthwash.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Are you stupid? No it doesn't?

    There is no mention of use of force being justified. Do you even know how to read, or are you just copy-pasting talking points from an AI?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -8 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    Nazi analogies aren’t evidence. Self-defense is judged on imminent threat and reasonableness, not rhetoric or insults.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    So are you planning on engaging with the point or do you plan to continue to ignore things you can't refute?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    I am engaging — by rejecting rhetoric and focusing on the legal standard. If you think the threat wasn’t imminent or reasonable, make that case directly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Here, since you seem to have trouble reading:

    There is no mention of use of force being justified. Do you even know how to read, or are you just copy-pasting talking points from an AI?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    The analogy doesn’t address the legal standard. What does matter under DHS policy and legal analysis is whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat at the moment shots were fired — not whether a hashtag slogan or metaphor mentions “justification.”

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Okay, but that's not what was being discussed.

    This analogy only works if you assume the conclusion first — that ICE is equivalent to the Gestapo and therefore any force used against them is justified.

    You said this, and I challenged this claim. You have failed to refute this challenge, and still are.

    The analogy does not need to presuppose that assertion to work.

    Maybe if you were literate and not using an AI to talk for you? Maybe then you could adequately respond.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago

    The analogy doesn’t actually address the legal standard that matters here. The question in this case isn’t whether ICE is like some historical regime — it’s whether the agent’s use of deadly force met the objectively reasonable imminent‑threat standard under federal and state law.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 10 months ago (24 children)

    "Deadly force shall not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing subject," the memo says. The guidance allows deadly force when: A) The person in the vehicle is "using or imminently threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle"; or B) The vehicle is being driven in a way that's an immediate threat and no other objectively reasonable defensive option exists, including avoiding the vehicle." "DHS LEOs are prohibited from discharging firearms at the operator of a moving vehicle."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 24 child comments
  • [+] -15 points 10 months ago (23 children)

    The SUV was being driven toward the officer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago* (18 children)

    It wasn't.

    The wheel was turned to the right, away from the ICE agent on the left

    He pulled and aimed his gun at her face clearly before the car switched from moving backward to moving forward

    2 of the 3 shots went through the drivers side window. Ask yourself how someone being run over in the front can shoot the driver through the side window

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (16 children)

    That is not an acceptable point of view for the use of a firearm. Putting yourself in a position to "make an imperfect split second call" that results in killing someone means you failed. You are completely culpable for that when you take up a firearm. These agents are completely untrained. It's irresponsible to have untrained idiots roaming around with guns demanding compliance. This is the fault of ICE.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    I see you ignored several valid points that you were unable to refute and focused on the one where you maybe had a point- if only you could logically ignore all the other stuff being said, but you can't. And that point falls flat because it's predicated on your false narrative. Nice try, dipshit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    Which points are you referring to?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    The entire comment you already failed to respond to. Instead of asking me to quote what was already said, why don't you put on your big boy pants and learn to read? If you want literally anyone to read what you're saying and not dismiss you as a joke? Yeah you're going to have to go back through the comment chain and find where you failed to adequately respond and correct it for yourself.

    I mean, I guess you don't have to, but everyone here who is literate is able to see that you quite literally did not respond in a meaningful way to that comment, and to several comments, and that you have danced around inconvenient truths and questions.

    So feel free. All you're accomplishing is rage bait.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 10 months ago (11 children)

    I’ve addressed the core points: whether self-defense law applies and how imminent threat is judged. If you think I missed something, quote the specific point — blanket insults and claims of “dance around inconvenient truths” don’t clarify anything. I’m not here to chase insults or prove myself to people who are more interested in rage-baiting than discussion. If you want a factual conversation, stick to evidence and law instead of calling names.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    If that’s the best you’ve got, you’ve already lost the argument. Insults don’t replace facts or legal reasoning.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    I wish you could stick to evidence and law but you don't even have a proper understanding on the basics of the judicial system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    If you think I’ve misunderstood the law, then point to the specific legal standard or case you believe I’m getting wrong. Simply asserting that I ‘don’t understand the basics’ isn’t an argument. Self-defense turns on objective reasonableness and imminence at the moment force is used — that’s settled law. If you disagree with how that applies here, explain where and why, with evidence

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That's not what's being argued here. You seem to be getting your threads mixed up- probably because the AI attempting to rationalize your arguments is getting confused by all the different contexts.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    That is not an acceptable point of view for the use of a firearm. Putting yourself in a position to "make an imperfect split second call" that results in killing someone means you failed. You are completely culpable for that when you take up a firearm. These agents are completely untrained. It's irresponsible to have untrained idiots roaming around with guns demanding compliance. This is the fault of ICE.

    here ya go buddy. Go ahead and try again.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    An agent’s location in the moments before a threat emerges does not negate the reality of an oncoming vehicle being used in a way that can cause death or serious injury. Once the vehicle moved toward him, the agent was entitled to respond to the immediate danger he reasonably perceived, regardless of how quickly the situation developed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    In fact, intentionally putting yourself into dangerous situations where you are forced to respond in "self-defense" is codified into the law and is blatantly illegal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago

    The video evidence from multiple angles shows that the ICE agent who fired his weapon was not standing directly in front of the SUV until the driver reversed. In other words, he wasn’t stationary in front of the car the whole time — the vehicle’s own reverse motion put the ICE agent in front of the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Tell me you didn't watch the video without telling me. The front left tire / left bumper have passed him when he fires the first shot.

    Not to mention he has been trained that he is not to shoot at moving vehicles if the driver is not presenting another potential form of deadly force.

    No matter how you spin it, he broke the law.

    lick

    liiiiiiiiick

    "Thank you, Mein Führer! This new wax polish is tasty!"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)