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
[–] -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