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?
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.
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.
Which points are you referring to?
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.
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.
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.