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:
-
Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]
-
Absolutely no calls for violent action.
-
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?
Huge mistake on her part that cost her life. It was very unfortunate. But anyway, it was self defense. The ICE agent clearly thought she was going to run him over with the SUV, and he had to make a split second decision. She should not have tried to take off.
Calling this murder is beyond ridiculous.
I know this is pointless since you’ve already put on the obstinate troll hat but here goes.
First, one of this things they teach to cops is not stand in front of a vehicle that can run you over (my son is a cop). You keep at least an arms length between you and the vehicle and never in its path of motion. The ICE officer should not have been in that position in the first place.
Secondly if he was worried about his own safety his first instinct would have been jumping to the side, not pulling his weapon.
Thirdly, his situational awareness would have noted the direction of the tires, the demeanor of the driver, the lack of aggressive behavior, etc.
He did not fear for his life. It was not self defense. Had the driver been aiming for him, shooting the driver does not immediately stop the car. Shooting the driver would cause the car to accelerate which it did. He was a bully that wanted to punish anyone who disobeyed or disrespected him. He had already been injured before for making stupid decisions based on his lack of situational awareness. If anything it was more like PTSD and he should not have been in that situation in the first place.
It is attitudes like yours that creates the environments that allow these assholes to continue terrorizing people. Being an undocumented immigrant is not a reason to be shot. Being a mom who didn’t listen to a fascist is also not a reason to be shot.
With being said, please eat a bag of dicks.
The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the SUV until it began reversing. His perception of imminent danger had to be judged in split seconds. Courts don’t expect officers to make perfect decisions — only reasonable ones based on what they saw at the moment. Video and reports show he was struck by the car, which supports that he faced a real and immediate threat when he acted.
You are blind or a liar. Given your history, you’re a fascist liar that needs to be banned for spreading lies and hate.
Calling people liars or fascists doesn’t change the actual evidence. The legal focus remains on whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat in that split second, not on social media narratives or insults.
You disregarding the evidence and lying to protect your murderer, doesn’t change the evidence. Also, when someone pops off and does attack you in real life for your shitty lies, it will be self defence. You have no defense.
Name-calling and threats don’t turn disagreement into ‘lying.’ And implying real-world violence over an argument just proves you’ve abandoned evidence and law entirely.
They abandoned law and order when they shot an innocent woman in the face. You have as well. You’re an accomplice. You’ll say the wrong shit at the wrong time and get a bullet for your trouble from the very fascists you are simping for.
Keep replying, not like we don’t already have your IP
Eat a bag of dicks
If that’s the best you’ve got, you’ve already lost the argument. Insults don’t replace facts or legal reasoning.
I said, eat a bag of dicks.
Personal attacks don’t substitute for facts or sound legal reasoning.
Or, like, maybe, you should go eat a bag of dicks.
If that’s your argument, congratulations — you’ve lost. Insults aren’t a debate.
Found another lying boomer shithead.
Name-calling isn’t evidence.
Boo hoo, the fascist wants to be treated with respect instead of as the lying piece of shit that he is. We like doxxing you assholes.
Threatening doxxing crosses the line. That’s not debate, accountability, or activism — it’s harassment, and it puts real people at risk. If you ever want to argue facts or law without threats, that’s different. This isn’t.
Cry more little fascist scum. This isn’t corpo controlled internet. No one will save you.
This has crossed into harassment and threats. If you want to talk facts or ideas without abuse, that’s different. This isn’t.
Removed by mod
That’s a direct endorsement of violence. I’m not engaging with threats, intimidation, or attempts to justify harm.
Evidence does no good with your lying shit for brains ass. People have already cited the evidence, the policies and the laws the federal terrorist broke. You have no thinking skills critical or otherwise.
Insults aren’t evidence, and certainty isn’t a verdict.
mate you can fuck right off back to facebook with that shit
That’s not a response to the argument — it’s just an admission you don’t have one.
no, it’s a response to a comment that doesn’t deserve a response
and your further replies only show that you don’t deserve a response
fuck off and die, asshole
If that’s where you’re at, then we’re done here. I’m not interested in trading insults or threats — especially when there’s nothing substantive left to discuss.
Removed by mod
yo to whatever mod removed my comment without notification of why, please explain what rule it broke
Death wishes aren’t discussion.
where is there a death wish?
also, who said this was a discussion?
There was a death wish. I am glad the moderator removed your comment.
Let’s just say we’re actually arguing self-defense, how does shooting the driver of a car in front of you eliminate that danger? If he had actually been in danger he would have been ran over because after murdering her the car accelerated forward.
Self-defense isn’t judged by hindsight or perfect outcomes. The law doesn’t require an officer to make a perfect decision — only a reasonable one based on what he perceived in split seconds.
Only an unreasonable person would believe that killing the driver of a car that you are no longer in front of would be self-defense. It goes against every policy I’ve seen related to use of force against drivers even if she had been intentionally ramming him. Maybe if this were a random person but he has been trained specifically about this scenario and has been in the job for ten years, cops have been charged for less in similar situations. He has no defense, but there likely won’t be a legitimate trial anyway.
Given how fast things unfolded, you can’t expect an officer to make a perfect decision — only a reasonable one based on what he perceived in that split second. Even if the video later shows the officer wasn’t directly in front of the vehicle at the exact moment the shots were fired, the issue isn’t hindsight with perfect vision — it’s what a reasonable officer believed at that moment under intense pressure. Federal use‑of‑force policy explicitly says reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with 20/20 hindsight after reviewing multiple angles in super slow motion.
A reasonable person must have believed they could get out of the way of the vehicle, of which the driver was not accused of any crime and was not acting belligerent, because his feet and legs were almost entirely to the side of the vehicle before he shot, and he continued shooting through the side window. If he has such a lack of awareness or emotional instability that his perception becomes so easily warped he should not be trusted in that role. Furthermore it only unfolded that quickly because of aggressive actions of the officers. They pulled directly up to the vehicle, trapped it with their bodies while she tried to comply with their order to leave, while also shouting conflicting orders in the first instant they got up to the victim.
And if we are looking at the full picture, what could their justification be for lieing about having medics or blocking medical aid for over ten minutes? Then once arriving, blocking the ambulance down the road. Actions after the fact attest to a person’s state of mind when committing the act. Why wouldn’t they comply with an investigation and stay on scene right away as well? I really doubt there is any official policy that you should flee the scene after you shoot someone in the face even in self defense.
Tactics, positioning, and conflicting commands absolutely matter and can affect whether the officer’s perception was reasonable. But under the legal self‑defense standard, what counts is whether a reasonable officer in that exact moment perceived an imminent threat of serious harm. Hindsight, video slow‑motion, or how the encounter started don’t change that standard — though those factors are relevant for accountability, training, and evaluating reasonableness. What happened after the shooting — including delays in medical aid, communication issues, or how the officers handled the scene — is absolutely relevant for accountability, policy evaluation, and potential misconduct investigations. Those actions can inform judgments about professionalism and whether proper procedures were followed.
I can’t say what he perceived but multiple agents were circling the vehicle while the driver was trying to leave, they yelled conflicting demands which included telling her to leave and then tried to open her door when she hadn’t done anything warrenting her apprehension, within seconds shooting her from the side of her vehicle. ICE has already murdered people, you could argue that she feared for her life, and rightfully so. She was in her right to defend herself from the masked unidentified agents apparently trying to abduct her.
The legal standard doesn’t disappear just because the situation was chaotic. What matters in a self‑defense analysis is what a reasonable officer reasonably believed at the exact moment the shots were fired, not how the encounter started or what someone felt later. Footage also shows the driver and her spouse talking rudely and appearing not fearful at all in the whole situation.
How the encounter started is entirely relevant. How can it be self-defense when the officer purposely and needlessly put themselves in danger? If you base an analysis solely on what the shooter says they felt in the moment how can you have any sort of objective investigation into any shooting?
The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the car until the driver reversed the car. He didn’t put himself in danger, the car motion did. Context matters, but the legal standard focuses on what a reasonable officer perceived at the exact moment the shots were fired, not how the encounter started. How the situation began can inform training or policy questions, but self‑defense under federal law is judged by split-second perceived threat, not hindsight or moral judgment.
This looks like an astroturfing account, only ever comments on political stuff parroting the fascist lines.
Should we be honored to have gotten big enough to spend resources on for astroturfing?
Plenty of people do it for free.
“Astroturfing” is a convenient accusation when you don’t want to engage with the argument. I’m one person expressing a view — you’re free to disagree, but try addressing the point instead of inventing motives.
If you looked at the the different camera angles showing that it was a straight up murder and didn’t have a shred of basic humanity then you wouldn’t be saying any of the propaganda bullshit that you are.
Calling something “murder” doesn’t make it so, and calling disagreement “propaganda” isn’t an argument. If you think the self-defense standard isn’t met, explain why without assuming bad faith.
He broke every department policy in going in front of the vehicle. He raised his firearm before she began to move again. By the time he actually shoots both feet are completely clear of the vehicle, and his entire body is leaning over the front of the hood. By the time he is at his 2nd shot he is to the entire side of the vehicle, shooting into an open windows his third shot goes into the back of her head.
It’s pathetic that someone who has shown they have eyes can see this is any other way then “This ice agent wanted to kill somebody and created a reason to do so”. It was premeditated murder.
Thankfully I’m not a lawyer, and neither are you. However, even MPLS police chief, MN BCA, and Governor seems to disagree with you, so maybe stop happily eating kristi noems shit and have some actual critical thoughts for once.
Policy violations ≠ premeditated murder. Intent has to be proven, not asserted, and self-defense is judged on reasonable perception at the moment — not frame-by-frame hindsight or political reactions.
Maybe go back to grade school as well, since clearly you’ve forgotten how to fully read and analyze what someone has written.
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.
The law still distinguishes between violating policy and committing murder. Intent must be proven, and self-defense is judged by what was reasonable at that moment, not by hindsight or political opinion.
I’m pretty sure you’re literally actually JD Vance.
Still not an argument.
I’m not making an argument, I just think you’re the actual vice president.
If you want to debate, stick to facts instead of random personal claims
Oh, I’m not debating, Mr. Vance. This isn’t a debate, there is no evidence, there’s no arguments.
I’m harassing you for being a fascist.
Fascism always loses in the end. Turns out, only fascists want to live under fascism. Everyone else will fight back. :)
Claiming there’s “no evidence” while refusing to engage with evidence isn’t moral clarity — it’s opting out of thinking.
Fuck your “debate”. It is unquestionable that Renee was murdered. You are a fascist piece of shit.
If something is “unquestionable,” it should be easy to explain without insults. Calling it murder doesn’t make it so — that’s a legal conclusion that depends on evidence, intent, and the standard for self-defense. You’re free to be angry. You’re not entitled to replace facts with abuse and call that certainty.
That’s exactly how JD Vance would phrase it.
I suppose we watched the same videos.
You’re taking the White House at face value, huh?
Independent critical thinking.
Here is critical thinking. Dictators, evil ones, love to feed their lies, show their force, defend his evil soldiers. The reason is to get everyone obey him, as we see with billionares, take huge bribes and get as much money as possible, we also see this. He was caught lying many many times, openly gets bribed on tv. There are evidences that he is child rapist, murderer. Yet, right now when he wants to protect his bad soldiers, it is pretty logical that what he wrote about this situation is another lie. Why are you protecting lying pedo corrupted dictator?
I’m not defending anyone personally or morally — I’m discussing the legal standard for self-defense and use of force. Whether you dislike a politician, agency, or official does not change how the law evaluates whether an officer’s actions were reasonable at the moment force was used. Also, there is no credible evidence that Trump is a child rapist or murderer. You were just making stuff up. You’re free to argue about alleged corruption or misconduct separately, but that’s a different question from the legal framework governing self-defense, which is what I’ve been addressing.
I mean they were unlawful lol. It was not a self defense he was chasing her and reassured that she is dead or how he called her “fucking dumb bitch”. I think you need medical assesment as your thought processes are at least strange and abnormal
You’re confusing policy violations and offensive language with the legal test for self-defense. Courts judge reasonableness at the moment force is used, not based on hindsight, profanity, or unrelated claims. Insults aren’t an argument — evidence is.
I wanna hear this critical thinking you did, after watching the multiple angles of video evidence.
The critical thinking is exactly what the law uses: judges and juries don’t evaluate actions by slow-motion reconstructions or hindsight. They look at what a reasonable person in that moment would have perceived as an imminent threat. Watching multiple angles after the fact doesn’t change the fact that he had to make a split-second decision under stress — which is exactly what self-defense law is designed to account for.
Shooting the driver of a vehicle does not make it magically come to a stop. If you had time to draw, aim, and shoot a weapon instead of moving yourself out of the way, then you obviously weren’t that afraid. Which makes a claim of self-defense null.
Realistically, I’d probably call this manslaughter rather the murder. But no one here is defending the shooting.
“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.”
Well that’s pretty fucking clear and nearly impossible to misinterpret. But I’d bet that it will be.
Of course it will. Or it will be quietly changed and this version will be branded AI, woke lies, or whatever else the administration can think of.
But the internet never forgets. Their immunity ends when the regime falls.
It was a split second decision, and that decision making won’t be perfect. Anyone with half a brain would understand this.
Then he shouldn’t have a fucking gun. Give him a taser or a baton. Personally I’d fire any employee that incompetent though.
Also. The woman kept the accelerator pinned after he murdered her, because she was fucking dead. If he hadn’t moved out of the way BEFORE SHOOTING HER, then he would have caused his own injury by shooting someone that had their foot on the accelerator, in the face.
He made so many moves and decisions in that split second that it almost makes you think he’d played this out in his head beforehand.
You’re narrating this as if it happened in slow motion with perfect information. Real-life self-defense isn’t judged by whether someone picked the optimal move after the fact, but whether there was a reasonable fear of imminent harm at the moment force was used.
His job description does not include playing vigilante and pulling anyone in his way out of cars. He chose to pretend he was invincible and step in front of a car with no bearing on his orders; she had nothing to do with their sweep, he just wanted to intimidate some middle aged soccer mom. Everything after that decision is blood on his hands.
There’s a reason no real LEO would put their hands on a car in gear, let alone voluntarily walk in front of it to prevent it from moving unless it’s a serious life-death situation. That shit will get you hurt, intentionally or not. She didn’t have a weapon, she wasn’t kidnapping anyone. If you think that middle aged woman needs to be caught and questioned you can always get her plate and follow up later.
Use your goddamn head before escalating a situation and you won’t need to worry about self defense.
You’re arguing tactics and motives with the benefit of hindsight. The law doesn’t. A vehicle can be lethal force, and self-defense turns on perceived imminent threat in real time — not whether you think a different option might have been better afterward.
There is no law for what they’re doing. That’s not a defense. Their job, ostensibly, is to remove “dangerous criminals who shouldn’t be here” and ensure safety in that neighborhood. What actually happened is they fucked around and murdered a woman who had literally nothing to do with their operation for no sane reason.
Like I know you’re just a rage bait account (no one could be this fucking stupid) but imagine if this was a normal police officer. These cops are here for, say, a drug bust and this car pulls into the street and tries to Y turn to get out. There is literally no reason to engage with the car, much less walk in front of it, much less shoot the fucking driver. Unless your goals are illegal use of force for political intimidation, that car should drive away 10/10 times.
It’s not a tactical question. It’s not about self defense. It’s murder. If a soldier in a fucking war zone did this it would still be a war crime. And we’re talking about broad daylight in Minneapolis after a mom drops off her kids at school.
Bad tactics or unnecessary engagement don’t automatically void self-defense. The legal question is the officer’s reasonable perception at the moment force was used, not whether the encounter should have happened in hindsight.
Tell me which part of this DHS policy supports the actions of the officer in the video:
“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.”
Policy B is the relevant clause. The vehicle can qualify as deadly force if it presents an imminent threat and avoidance isn’t reasonably perceived as possible in that moment. Policy violations ≠ murder.
If they are going to blame untrained civilians when their split-second decisions are wrong, I’m not going to give trained personnel benefit of the doubt.
She should have listened to the ICE agent and got out of her car. The ICE agent was not going to run her over with an SUV.
ICE should just listen to protesters and go home. Then nobody gets hurt
That’s not how the rule of law works. Federal agencies don’t take orders from protesters, and enforcement can’t be contingent on who shouts the loudest. Noted Trump won the 2024 election, and the election has consequences. If you don’t like what ICE are doing, go ahead and try to win elections.
Putting yourself in a dangerous position does not give you the right to shoot and kill someone.
If their training is to stand in front of vehicles, than it’s their fault his life was in danger.
He made the decision to walk in front of a car. He had the choice long before that to remain out of harms way. He does not get to manufacture the excuse to murder someone.
He was just doing his job. Doesn’t mean she has the right to run him over with her SUV.
He placed himself in a situation that could put his life in danger, and may escalate to lethal force if the person panics, which is likely what happened here.
It’s likely a case of officer-created jeopardy.
“Officer-created jeopardy” isn’t a standalone rule that voids self-defense. Courts still ask the same question: at the moment force was used, was there a reasonable perception of imminent lethal threat? Even if earlier tactics are criticized, they don’t automatically negate the right to defend oneself when a vehicle is perceived as about to strike.
They escalated the situation, didn’t follow the procedures and put everyone, including themselves at risk and someone died. There’s at least some criminal negligence.
Claiming negligence based on outcomes ignores that the key question is what the officer reasonably perceived under stress, not what you think they should’ve done differently.
Negligence doesn’t judge hindsight outcomes, it judges whether the officer’s perceptions and decisions were reasonable under the circumstances. Stress explains behavior, it does not excuse it. If an officer’s own actions created the danger, misread a non-threat, or violated training, policy, or basic tactical principles, then their perception under stress can itself be negligent.
The ICE agent in question had previously been dragged 50
feetYARDS by a vehicle as well. You’d think he’d have learned not to step in front of cars:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-officer-fatally-shot-minnesota-woman-was-dragged-car-june-immigrat-rcna252992
He has learned self defense rather than being run over by an SUV.
Standing next to a car which was turning the opposite direction at their instruction? Sure.
Being near a vehicle during a stop isn’t the same as consenting to be run over. The relevant question is whether, at that moment, the officer reasonably perceived the vehicle as an imminent threat — not whether the car had been turning earlier.
Gestapo trooper on pogrom duty is spooked by horse stampede. Later, places himself in front of another horse and shoots the rider.
Government and media say “Clearly, she was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist.”
Chancellor threatens to invade the Sudetenland.
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.
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?
Nazi analogies aren’t evidence. Self-defense is judged on imminent threat and reasonableness, not rhetoric or insults.
So are you planning on engaging with the point or do you plan to continue to ignore things you can’t refute?
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.
Here, since you seem to have trouble reading:
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.”
yes, yes they are
If we’re going to debate this seriously, let’s focus on specific policies and actions, not just emotional labels.”
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
Invoking the Gestapo isn’t analysis — it’s a rhetorical shortcut. The Gestapo operated in a one-party dictatorship, without courts, warrants, due process, or constitutional limits, and carried out mass torture and extermination. ICE operates under statutory authority, judicial review, warrants, and is regularly challenged — and constrained — in U.S. courts. You can oppose immigration enforcement, criticize tactics, or argue for different laws without collapsing everything into “WWII = therefore Gestapo.” That analogy strips real historical atrocities of meaning and shuts down serious debate. And no — people aren’t being “killed for expressing opinions.” That kind of framing ignores facts and replaces them with fear narratives. If you think specific rights were violated in this case, name them and point to evidence. Otherwise this is speculation, not history. Liberty isn’t protected by declaring every institution you dislike to be Nazi-adjacent. It’s protected by applying law, evidence, and proportionality consistently — even when you don’t like the agency involved.
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.
Warning about gradual authoritarianism isn’t proof it’s happening. If you think lines are being crossed now, cite facts — otherwise it’s just a slippery slope argument replacing evidence.
Lick the boot harder. I don’t think they can see their faces in them quite yet.
Ah yes, the classic substitute for an argument.
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.
When a discussion turns into insults, it’s because your argument failed.
“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.”
The SUV was being driven toward the officer.
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
First of all. the car did hit him. And in split seconds it was completely normal he didn’t know whether she intended to go straight at him or not.
It is beyond ridiculous to think he was supposed to make a perfect decision in split of a second. She made a huge mistake to take off and it cost her life. It was unfortunate.
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.
That misunderstands how self-defense and law enforcement work. Using a firearm doesn’t require perfection — it requires a reasonable perception of imminent danger in a split second. Being human means mistakes happen, but the law evaluates perceived threat at the moment, not what could have been done differently afterward. She was at fault for not following law enforcement orders. She failed herself and as a result paid a hefty price.
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!”
He got hit by the car before he fired his first shot, but again it was a split second decision. No need to spin it as it was clear self defense.
also a split second decision to fire at least two more shots after that and shoot her in the head. that’s, of course, very reasonable.
That’s hindsight framing. In real life, shots aren’t individually decided or perfectly timed, and outcomes don’t define intent. Courts evaluate continuity of threat, not slow-motion reconstructions.
Removed by mod