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?
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.
They do. It’s pretty fucking obvious here. He wasn’t acting in accordance with any law. Hell, he probably doesn’t even have a badge on! In this engagement he’s just a guy with a vest, a gun and a mask.
If I were to glue “Police DHS” onto a vest, step in front of a car and execute the driver I would be in fucking jail. Assuming I wasn’t already killed by a panicked bystander. There is no “self defense” plea for me. It doesn’t mean jack shit if I thought I was making a citizen’s arrest. That is exactly what happened here.
We should be holding LEO (if you want to call these thugs that) to a higher standard than a civilian driving home from school. Period. Would you be defending these actions from an off duty police officer? Because that’s what he was in the most optimistic light: a guy with a gun and a mask.
Don’t answer, we already know you’re a groveling boot licker. I hope that pays off when they’re kicking in your door, shooting first and asking questions later.
Edit: for shits and giggles, look up the actual legal basis for self defense. It doesn’t apply if you start the engagement (e.g moving to block someone’s car) or if the force used is not proportional to the threat (e.g a car moving forward at 2 mph and braking vs 4 gunshots to the head).
His response to the threat was not even going to ensure his safety ffs! A car with an incapacitated driver is just as dangerous (to you and bystanders) as a car with a hostile driver. Did you not see it speed off into a telephone pole? That is the textbook reason why field manuals prohibit doing it.
No defense of this holds up to any scrutiny unless you’re determined to shut your eyes and ignore reality.
Calling this “execution” ignores how self-defense law actually works. Tactical mistakes or policy violations don’t automatically void the right to defend yourself when you reasonably perceive an imminent threat. Vehicles are lethal weapons, split-second decisions are messy, and hindsight doesn’t rewrite the legal standard. Insults, analogies, and outrage aren’t evidence — investigations determine what actually happened.
Bro doesn’t know how to read the fucking law. I spelled it out for you, should I use crayons next time?
🥾👅👅👅
Mockery isn’t law. Self‑defense doesn’t disappear because you claim policy violations or narrate the video at 0.25× speed. The legal standard is still reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used — not your after‑action certainty or emojis. If this were as “spelled out” as you say, it wouldn’t require insults to carry the argument.
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.