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
[–] 2 points 10 months ago (49 children)

Read the fucking law if you're such an armchair lawyer. You might find out your fucking fantasy defense is bullshit. I see evidence of a man taking a stupid belligerent action that got an innocent woman killed. You're just covering your eyes and hoping the unfortunate truth goes away.

The legal standard is still reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used

IT'S VERY FUCKING CLEARLY NOT YOU STUPID NEANDERTHAL. LOOK IT UP. LOOK IT UP. LOOK IT UP. STOP PRETENDING THAT THE LAW FITS YOUR FANTASY NARRATIVE. LOOK IT UP.

Also what fucking 0.25 speed narration? There is plenty of time to consider your actions when you're walking up to a car you have no business approaching and deliberately positioning yourself in a dangerous spot. If you're such a scared and panicked super soldier with an itchy trigger finger you shouldn't fucking be there. As a matter of fact, you're probably too goddamn stupid to be holding a gun, whoever appointed you there and sent you out on the street is criminally negligent at best.

And my mockery isn't the law, it's what you deserve you shit eating boot licker 💩👅🥾👅👅

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 49 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 10 months ago (48 children)

    I’m not engaging with screaming, slurs, or threats. The law is not a matter of how angry you are or how certain you feel after rewatching video. The standard is reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used — that’s settled law, not my invention. You can argue that the perception was unreasonable. That’s a legitimate position. What you can’t do is redefine the standard, declare intent as fact, and replace analysis with abuse.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 48 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (47 children)

    What you can't do is look up the actual law and find out you're wrong you fucking coward. Go do it. Go ahead. Hell you don't even have to do that much, just look up what lawyers and prosecuters are saying. Spoiler: everyone not wearing a Maga hat is coming to the same conclusion.

    You also don't have the moral fortitude to call a spade a spade: this ICE agent was unilaterally deployed for intimidation and that reckless order got an innocent woman killed. How many "deportations" is that worth? What rule of law is being upheld when citizens are being killed without justification by gunmen in the streets?

    I'm using caps, insults and repetition as a communication method to get past your thin skinned denial of reality. Open your fucking eyes! This is absurd. I'm not going to have a calm and rational conversation about whether we should or should not be allowing innocent citizens to be gunned down in the street for the crime of startling a thug.

    We're long past debating theoretical idiotic tariffs, people are fucking dying. And you're just having a great time deep throating that boot to the ankle. Thanks for the catharsis tho, I'm glad dipshits like you are here to play the idiot

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 47 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago (46 children)

    I’ve stated the law accurately: use of deadly force is judged by objective reasonableness at the moment it’s used. You can argue the agent’s perception was unreasonable, but shouting, insults, and claims that I’m inventing the law don’t change the standard

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 46 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (45 children)

    objective reasonableness at the moment

    Ok I'll bite since you're too dumb/cowardly to look it up yourself. There are dozens of factors that weigh on a ruling.

    • Number of belligerents (e.g multiple people surrounding the car)
    • Availability of other options (e.g not getting in front of the car, noting driver and plate for later)
    • Rules on force from authority, declaration of intent and proof of authority (e.g where are badges???)
    • Behavior before and after the event (e.g boxing in the car, not allowing medical attention)
    • Proportional force and timing of force (e.g dumping 3+ shots into the car well after the threat is gone)
    • Behavior of victim before the event (e.g victim is on a routine drive home on a public road)

    And on and on and on.... But sure, keep chanting "moment it's used" as if it's a magic spell that grants your jack boots immunity. Go polish some soles you fucking fascist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 45 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (44 children)

    You just proved my point. Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated. Minnesota self‑defense law — like federal use‑of‑force law — evaluates objective reasonableness at the moment force is used, informed by surrounding circumstances. Those “dozens of factors” you listed are inputs to the reasonableness analysis, not a replacement for it. Courts don’t ask whether an officer made every perfect tactical decision beforehand. They ask whether, at the moment shots were fired, a reasonable officer could perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Prior conduct can inform that analysis; it does not magically erase it. You’re arguing application — whether the threat had passed, whether alternatives existed, whether positioning was reckless. That’s a legitimate debate. What you’re still not doing is disproving the legal standard itself. Screaming “fascist” and pretending the law says “any mistake voids self‑defense” may feel satisfying, but it isn’t what courts apply — in Minnesota or anywhere else.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 44 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago* (43 children)

    Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated

    YOU ARE A FUCKING NEANDERTHAL. DO YOU KNOW THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

    NOTHING I LISTED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH "MOMENT".

    THEY SPEAK HOLISTICALLY TO THE ENTIRE ENCOUNTER.

    THE ONLY TENUOUS "THREAT" IS A FRACTION OF A SECOND OF A CAR IDLING IN DRIVE, WITH WHEELS CLEARLY ANGLED AWAY*

    EVERY OTHER FACT POINTS TO AN ACT OF MURDER IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BY A JACKED UP THUG.

    THESE ARE NOT FUCKING "TACTICS". THESE ARE FACTS PROVING THE CRIME IN QUESTION BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

    THERE IS NO DEBATE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU IMAGINE ONE.

    IF YOU THINK THERE IS YOU ARE A FASCIST.

    You don't need to put on a fucking powdered wig and gavel to see that an innocent woman was executed with absurd force. Go suck some Nazi cock on a qanon forum, you'll have a better time

    *dude had a front row view of her turning the steering wheel btw

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 43 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (42 children)

    You’re confusing scope of evidence with the legal decision point. Courts absolutely look at the entire encounter — but they do so to evaluate whether the officer’s perception was objectively reasonable at the moment deadly force was used. That’s not semantics, and it’s not optional. It’s how self-defense law works in Minnesota and federally. Declaring “there is no debate” and labeling disagreement as fascism doesn’t make it so. Courts don’t decide cases by caps lock, insults, or moral certainty — they decide them by applying that exact framework.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 42 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (41 children)

    Faaaaaaaascist 🚨🚨🚨🥾👅👅👅

    Edit: stfu about courts. Courts decide if you will or will not be punished for a crime, they have no bearing on if you committed a crime or not you fucking dope. Cases often get thrown out on paperwork technicalities or other procedural nonsense. That's why they don't declare a defendant innocent.

    Self defense exists as a shared exception to our social contract limiting violence. This event does not fall under that umbrella. You can see the video yourself. The man murdered a woman in broad daylight. The courts could declare that he's innocent and immune and is owed damages for mental stress but that wouldn't change the fact that he's worthless murdering scum and everyone protecting him is just as bad.

    We have multiple videos of this thug shooting her without any reasonable cause and beyond any reasonable limit of threat. We have videos of his gang circling the wagons and preventing bystanders from providing aid. We have videos of unarmed protesters getting loaded guns shoved in their face for pointing this unjustice out.

    It's clear as day, but go on pretending that being a pedantic shit will solve your problems


    Edit 2:

    Watch this whole exchange from all angles with the shitbag's own footage. Tell me where the threat was. Did the self defense start when he switched his cellphone hand to the left while walking to the front of the car, clearly intending to pull his gun? When he's stepping in front of the car WHILE IT'S MOVING? When he said fucking bitch as she finished her talk and started to leave? Tell me with a straight face that man isn't a murderer. If you refuse to agree after seeing that much evidence, you are a fascist and an enemy to the American people.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 41 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (40 children)

    You’ve moved from legal disagreement to moral absolutism, and those are not the same thing. You’re free to believe the shooting was immoral, unjustified, or even that the agent should be fired or prosecuted. What you don’t get to do is declare that the legal framework for self-defense doesn’t exist, or that disagreement itself is proof of fascism. Whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. That’s not “pedantry,” it’s how criminal liability is defined in a society governed by law rather than mob certainty. Courts don’t just decide punishment — they decide whether conduct meets the elements of a crime. You’ve made your moral judgment. I’ve explained the legal standard. We’re not debating evidence anymore — you’re demanding ideological agreement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 40 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (17 children)

    Self-defense doesn't exist when the position you are defending yourself from is one of your own creation.

    There is no self-defense argument here.

    You can't cause an instigation, assault or kill someone, then claim self-defense. That's not the way self-defense works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    He originally wasn't directly in front of the car. It was the car's reverse motion that put him directly in front of the car. Thus, he didn't create danger himself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (15 children)

    He did when he engaged the vehicle instead of allowing them to leave the scene when ordered.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    She didn't want to leave until all of a sudden she took off with the SUV and hit the ICE agent.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (13 children)

    That's not true, she was told to leave, right up until shooter decided she shouldn't.

    Again, this is all ICE instigated, it's not self defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    She shifted to drive and moved forward and the car hit the ICE agent, that was what caused the tragedy. Clearly self defense.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (11 children)

    The ICE agent was not hit by the car, you can see that in the footage he recorded himself. Why are you lying for them?

    https://youtu.be/rwwgUiNVSmc#t=5m19s

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

    The ICE agent was hit by the car. Have you checked all the videos at different angles?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6fxKbXDjXxM

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

    You buy soccer flops too? The wheels were turned away from him and no contact was made.

    https://youtu.be/cTIuzGRkunQ

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    The SUV clearly moved toward the ICE agent as he fired, and the camera jerks at the same moment — while it’s not 100% visually confirmed, multiple angles suggest he was struck or at least hit by the force of the car.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    No, it didn't. The wheels were cranked all the way over to the right, the agent was standing in front of the drivers side headlight, so when the car pulled forward, it was turning away from him.

    We know this because only the first shot went through the windshield, the others went through the open drivers side window.

    So as the vehicle turned away from him, and he was firing, one hit the very edge of the windshield, the others went through the open window, killing her.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    No — after she reversed, the ICE agent ended up directly in front of the SUV. When she moved the car forward, it actually lost traction for a split second, which would make the engine and tire noise louder and more threatening. She might have hit the gas pedal all the way. Imagine being in his position, hearing the sudden rev of the engine and the tires skidding toward you — it’s understandable he would perceive an imminent, serious threat. The video I linked shows this sequence, and based on multiple angles and the camera jerking at the same moment, it’s very likely he was hit or struck by the SUV.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago* (5 children)

    Again, you're completely incorrect as shown literally over and over again:

    1/2 hour analysis jumped to the relevant bit:

    https://youtu.be/7AQbhes-Ntw#t=5m2s

    He was not in danger, he was not hit by the car, he drew his gun before it was moving forward, the first shot was off to the side and the other shots went through the open window as it was turning away from him.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    The SUV’s motion, tire noise, and engine revving would understandably make an officer feel an imminent threat in a matter of seconds. Also, based on videos from different angles, the car did very likely indeed hit the ICE agent. Courts and use-of-force law judge self-defense on what a reasonable officer perceived at that split second, not hindsight, and self-defense very very likely stand based on the circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 10 months ago (3 children)

    What an officer "feels" is (supposed to be) irrelevant. They aren't supposed to make fatal decisions on feelings.

    And, again, you're misrepresenting the videos. None of them show contact with the agent. Common sense should tell you that he couldn't get 3 shots on target if he'd just been hit by a vehicle.

    He fired the first shot, which hit the left hand edge of the windshield, and as the vehicle was turning away from him, more shots through the open drivers side window.

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

    All the shots happened within split seconds, and courts do not judge self-defense in slow motion or frame by frame — they consider what a reasonable officer perceived at that exact moment. Video shows the ICE agent was directly in front of the SUV as it moved forward, with tires losing traction and engine/tire noise, making it reasonable for him to fear imminent harm. The law definitely doesn’t ignore perception — self-defense is judged on what a reasonable officer perceived in that split second, not on perfect hindsight.

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

    The ICE agent PLACED HIMSELF THERE. You don't get to claim self defense when you create the danger.

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

    The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the SUV at first. When the driver began to reverse, that motion put him directly in front of the SUV, and then when she shifted into drive and moved forward, that forward motion cause the car to hit him. As such, he didn't create the danger. The driver did.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (19 children)

    🔔🔔🔔Faaaaaascist

    Ding dong numbnuts, guess what? The law is the written reflection of society's moral code. Some things are so fundamental to that code that seeing hard evidence of the crime being committed becomes tautological and nothing more needs to be said.

    There is no law saying that any individual, or even a mob, can't call a murder a murder. That is by design, the USA preserves our constitutional right to free speech. We're only restricted from enacting a punishment (that right is ceded by the mob to our government). Knowing that, there are two options here:

    1. You deny it was a murder. You think that an ice agent has the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner on any street in America. Ergo, you discard 250 years of American ideological history; America's founding principles explicitly opposed to unilateral imposition of despotic violence. Ergo you are an enemy of America and a fascist.
    2. You're scared to call it a murder, even on anonymous platforms hosted outside the US. By refusing to speak out on such a low level, basic incident you are granting tacit legitimacy to that unconstitutional action; willing to cover your eyes without complaint while America succumbs to its ideological antithesis. Ergo you are betraying the constitution by your inaction, making you an enemy and a fascist

    I'm demanding a basic stand that is to be expected of any human in 2025 (aside from the cowards conditioned to put their heads in the sand). It's not even that hard. There is concrete evidence of a murder right in front of your eyes, just call it a murder.

    And even beyond the lofty heights of justice you're just making yourself look like a fucking idiot

    You: watches someone commit murder from 5 different angles

    ...

    You: uhh acktually whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. I'm gonna be a coward and hide behind papa Trump's courts

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 10 months ago (18 children)

    Moral certainty is not a legal argument. Declaring “it’s obviously murder” is a conclusion, not evidence. Due process exists precisely to prevent people from substituting outrage for analysis. Disagreement isn’t fascism — it’s how law works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (17 children)

    Lmfao you're such a joker. Just out here making yourself look like an idiot, blatantly denying reality, a perfect picture of cognitive dissonance. When they break into your house and shoot a loved one on a flimsy "self-defense" justification I hope you're still preaching "legal argument". 🥾👅👅👅

    Disagreement isn't fascism. Refusing to condemn Nazis murdering innocent people in public very much makes you a fascist cuck

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (16 children)

    Threats, insults, and hyperbolic hypotheticals don’t change the legal framework. The law exists so that we don’t decide guilt based on anger or outrage, even in tragic or morally upsetting situations. Equating measured legal analysis with being “fascist” or a “cuck” is itself an ideological attack, not an argument. If you want to actually debate legality, focus on evidence and elements of the law, not moral posturing or ad hominem attacks.

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

    FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH

    Even on an obvious rage bait account like this, saying that dumb shit makes you a fascist cuck. There's no debate here, just one fascist clown doing tricks for our entertainment 🤡👅👅👅👅💩👅👅👅

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    Resorting to screaming, insults, and performative name-calling doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms there’s no actual engagement with the legal points. I’m not here to win an insult contest; I’m discussing the law and evidence. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about legality, we can stick to facts, legal standards, and reasoning — otherwise this just becomes a circus of ad hominem attacks, which isn’t a debate.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (13 children)

    Lololol I replied to all of your points and you gave no response. You're like a broken record when you get backed into a corner "L L L Legal... Legality... Court... Ev ev evidence... S s self defense... Ad ad... ad hominem 😢". You're like a tanky defaulting to "read more theory" because you have no fucking response.

    Long plodding replies don't change the fact that your a cowardly fascist boot licker who can't answer a simple question: We have a synced video compiled from half a dozen angles (including his own fucking perspective) over the full encounter. Is that...

    • A. A rational law abiding officer making reasonable decisions for his own safety while performing the task he was sent out to do
    • B. A man cursing at a woman, lining himself up in front of her moving car, and shooting her 3 times in the head because this tough manly man couldn't handle a middle aged woman making passive aggressive remarks while she coached exactly what he should have done ("Take my liscense plate! It will be the same tomorrow")

    "I'll wait for the courts to tell me how to use by brain" is not an answer. Go watch that woman get shot 100 more times if you're not sure. If your answer in the face of that overwhelming evidence is anything but B, you're a fascist who's just as bad as the goon pulling the trigger.

    Now give an answer

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

    Legal self-defense isn’t about hindsight or perfection — it’s about whether a reasonable officer in that split second perceived an imminent threat, which the footage supports. That’s why courts don’t require flawless decisions, only reasonable ones under the circumstances.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (11 children)

    BZZZZT Wrong answer. Please review my comment about the purpose of law, the court system and social contracts.

    I didn't ask you what the court would say. I didn't ask about hindsight. I asked what you saw in that video. You refuse to answer. Why would that be?

    You don't get to plead the 5th here, you're not on trial. Why can't you tell me? Are you struggling to resolve the basic facts of the video with your dear leader's marching orders? Trumps administration had no problem delivering their self defense verdict a handful of hours after the shooting, before they even had access to half of this evidence. Surely you can support your stance easily?

    I want you to tell me, with no detail spared, why that woman deserved to be shot 3 times in the head

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

    I saw a reasonably rational law abiding officer making reasonably rational decisions for his own safety while performing the task he was sent out to do.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (9 children)

    Lmao good you admit you're a fascist! That's progress! Now support that narrative with any shred of evidence.

    Tell me! List your supporting evidence from that video! Tell me what exactly made her an urgent threat? What about her demeanor was triggering your fight-or-flight? Explain to me how holding a fucking phone while walking in front of a moving car is keeping anyone safe? Tell me how leaping at the opportunity to send followup shots into the window (well after the car was moving away) was a perfectly normal decision? Why was a rational agent going against all guides and regulations by killing this woman behind the wheel of a 2 ton SUV? That's just extended self defense even if it gets a bystander killed?

    Or does fear give you a free pass to do anything you want? "Oh oops he did literally everything wrong in this situation, audibly escalated the situation and got shot someone for no reason. But SeLf DeFeNsE means we can discard all that problematic context"

    I've been closer to getting run over in a fucking crosswalk than that agent's "brush with death" and somehow I managed not to murder anyone...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    I’m not saying everything the officer did was flawless. What matters legally for self-defense is whether, in that split second, he reasonably perceived an imminent threat of serious harm or death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (7 children)

    "What matters is that if I close my eyes to what's happening and deny reality they'll keep shooting the other instead of me"

    Best of luck with that pal. Be careful dropping your kids off at school btw, I hear there's some heroes patrolling our streets who might view that as a lethal threat. They'll be well within their rights to splatter your brain all over the back seat, but maybe if you grovel hard enough and tell them how you voted you'll be able to calm them down. Maybe not, who knows, you'll be too dead to argue

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    I get that this is emotional, but threats and insults don’t change the legal facts. What matters under law is whether, in that split second, a reasonable officer perceived an imminent threat of serious harm, not what we think in hindsight. Videos and analyses show the SUV moved while the agent was near it — whether or not it was intentional, courts focus on perceived danger, not perfect decisions.

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

    Here's a free tip bootlicker, practice pulling out your id niiiiice and slow

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    “Arguing I should ‘practice pulling out my ID slowly’ is about as relevant to the legal standard as telling someone to juggle while driving — completely absurd. What matters is whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat in that split second, not your random hypothetical.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (3 children)

    Random hypothetical lmfao. Are you legitimately a little slow? I'd feel a little bad laughing at you

    What matters is you think any goon has the God given right to shoot someone because the government gave them a gun and they might have gotten scared (and if they're not shooting you of course). On top of that you're cheering for the gestapo literally walking around asking for papers. It doesn't take rocket science to see how those mix.

    So yes, practice pulling out your id very slowly while you lick their boots you fucking coward. Otherwise your infallible legal process will have to find a way to spoon gray matter back into your thick skull

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

    Insults and wild hypotheticals don’t change the facts. The videos show the SUV moving forward as the officer fired — whether or not it was intentional, he had only split seconds to assess an imminent threat. Courts and federal use-of-force policy don’t expect perfect decisions, only reasonable ones under intense pressure. That’s the legal standard, not whatever caricature you’re trying to paint. Personal attacks don’t replace evidence or law. If you’re upset about what happened, the effective and responsible way to push for change is through peaceful protest and winning elections — not encouraging or celebrating violence against ICE, even if you strongly disagree with their actions.

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

    Bro you couldn't make this shit up, your dumb ass troll persona is impeccable

    The guy who murdered this woman is former police. A huge chunk of ICE are former police. These former police ^(now try to keep up here)^, are the same ones shooting kids for pulling out phones. They're the ones breaking into the wrong house and shooting sleeping children. They're the ones shooting teens in the back for running while wearing a hoodie. They're the ones who killed 1300 people in 2024, a record high and top 10 per capita worldwide.

    Your logic is that they're going to turn a new leaf because they got a shiny new vest? You're a fucking clown bro

    Buh bye boot licker, I truly hope you live to regret your dumbass comments

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

    Collective guilt and rage dumps aren’t legal arguments. You’re listing unrelated tragedies to justify condemning this specific incident without applying the actual legal standard. Self-defense law doesn’t change based on your opinion of police, ICE, or statistics — it asks whether, in that moment, a reasonable officer perceived an imminent threat. You don’t get to replace evidence and law with slogans, insults, or ‘all cops are the same’ logic. And no — anger at institutions doesn’t justify violence against agents or rewriting legal standards after the fact. Accountability comes through investigations and courts, not mobs or moral absolutism.

  • source
  • parent