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?
“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.
His own phone video shows him circling the car to photograph the bumper stickers so that he could determine “what side” she was on. Only then does his own video show him moving in front of a car performing a three point turn so that he would be bumped. The federal terrorist committed premeditated murder you fascist liar.
He was not standing directly in front of the SUV until the driver reversed. Calling me a ‘fascist’ isn’t an argument — it’s a label meant to avoid engaging with facts or law. Disagreeing about this incident doesn’t make someone a fascist; it just means you don’t have a substantive response.
Boy your reading comprehension is awful, not to mention apparently your eyes as well. He was very much in front of the car, before reversing, while reversing, and then only after she cranked the wheel to avoid him entirely did he step out of the way to shoot her in the head.
Don’t know what else to say man, already told you you’re not a lawyer and that even our item police chief, and DHS itself say the guy was in the wrong and had no reason to shoot, because he broke policy and did everything in the exact opposite way as they’re trained.
I’m sure you’ll just ignite everything I’ve read though and repeat exactly the same thing you have been.
He clearly was not in front of the car reversing. She did not avoid him, the car clearly hit him. All few shots were within split seconds.
In self-defense law, actions are judged in a split second, not with slow-motion hindsight. The standard is what a reasonable person in that moment would perceive as an imminent threat, based on limited, rapidly unfolding information. You don’t get the benefit of pause, perfect angles, or later analysis — you act on what you reasonably believe is happening right then. That’s why courts focus on perception at the moment force is used, not whether later video review or commentary thinks a different choice might have been possible.
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.
Ah yes, you know your rules of debate and argument well.
It’s just, well, that (and the whole outspoken fascist thing, let’s be real) won’t win you any affection or interest at parties, won’t endear you to anybody else, but hey, your role model Stephen has an office down the hall, and he’s just as lonely and extremely racist and fascist as you are! If he’s in the White House, just like you, then maybe you could make something of yourself.
Does Erica Kirk feel like a couch on the inside?
Personal insults aren’t arguments — they’re what people use when they don’t have one.
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.
NO. I reject your sanewashing bullshit, because it is both falsehood and in service to evil.
I watched the videos. From every damn angle before and after Johnathan Ross killed Renee. He knew what he was doing, and had absolutely no remorse for what he did. He killed someone, and fled the scene of the crime.
You have no integrity, “Liberty Forever”. The only liberty you possess is the kind that is completely void of morality, that wants to be free of consequence and justice. No different from Trump, Noem, Kash, and so many other horrible people that are leading my nation into destruction and suffering. You are a monster just like them, the only difference being that you lack their authority to hurt people.
Your words must be called out for what they are: deceitful and malicious.
You’re stating certainty about intent, motive, and state of mind that you cannot actually prove from video footage alone. That’s not “calling out evil,” it’s replacing legal standards with moral conviction. Watching videos — even from multiple angles — does not establish premeditation, lack of remorse, or criminal intent. Those are precisely the things that investigations, testimony, and courts exist to determine. Declaring them settled because you feel certain isn’t justice; it’s a shortcut around it. You’re free to believe the actions were reckless, wrong, or deserving of discipline or reform. But branding disagreement as “malicious” or “evil” doesn’t strengthen your case — it just signals that you’ve moved from argument to accusation. If this discussion requires demonization instead of evidence, then there’s nothing productive left to say.
That’s exactly how JD Vance would phrase it.
I suppose we watched the same videos.