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?
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.
Read the fucking law if you’re such an armchair lawyer. You might find out your fucking fantasy defense is bullshit. I see evidence of a man taking a stupid belligerent action that got an innocent woman killed. You’re just covering your eyes and hoping the unfortunate truth goes away.
IT’S VERY FUCKING CLEARLY NOT YOU STUPID NEANDERTHAL. LOOK IT UP. LOOK IT UP. LOOK IT UP. STOP PRETENDING THAT THE LAW FITS YOUR FANTASY NARRATIVE. LOOK IT UP.
Also what fucking 0.25 speed narration? There is plenty of time to consider your actions when you’re walking up to a car you have no business approaching and deliberately positioning yourself in a dangerous spot. If you’re such a scared and panicked super soldier with an itchy trigger finger you shouldn’t fucking be there. As a matter of fact, you’re probably too goddamn stupid to be holding a gun, whoever appointed you there and sent you out on the street is criminally negligent at best.
And my mockery isn’t the law, it’s what you deserve you shit eating boot licker 💩👅🥾👅👅
I’m not engaging with screaming, slurs, or threats. The law is not a matter of how angry you are or how certain you feel after rewatching video. The standard is reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used — that’s settled law, not my invention. You can argue that the perception was unreasonable. That’s a legitimate position. What you can’t do is redefine the standard, declare intent as fact, and replace analysis with abuse.
What you can’t do is look up the actual law and find out you’re wrong you fucking coward. Go do it. Go ahead. Hell you don’t even have to do that much, just look up what lawyers and prosecuters are saying. Spoiler: everyone not wearing a Maga hat is coming to the same conclusion.
You also don’t have the moral fortitude to call a spade a spade: this ICE agent was unilaterally deployed for intimidation and that reckless order got an innocent woman killed. How many “deportations” is that worth? What rule of law is being upheld when citizens are being killed without justification by gunmen in the streets?
I’m using caps, insults and repetition as a communication method to get past your thin skinned denial of reality. Open your fucking eyes! This is absurd. I’m not going to have a calm and rational conversation about whether we should or should not be allowing innocent citizens to be gunned down in the street for the crime of startling a thug.
We’re long past debating theoretical idiotic tariffs, people are fucking dying. And you’re just having a great time deep throating that boot to the ankle. Thanks for the catharsis tho, I’m glad dipshits like you are here to play the idiot
I’ve stated the law accurately: use of deadly force is judged by objective reasonableness at the moment it’s used. You can argue the agent’s perception was unreasonable, but shouting, insults, and claims that I’m inventing the law don’t change the standard
Ok I’ll bite since you’re too dumb/cowardly to look it up yourself. There are dozens of factors that weigh on a ruling.
And on and on and on… But sure, keep chanting “moment it’s used” as if it’s a magic spell that grants your jack boots immunity. Go polish some soles you fucking fascist.
You just proved my point. Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated. Minnesota self‑defense law — like federal use‑of‑force law — evaluates objective reasonableness at the moment force is used, informed by surrounding circumstances. Those “dozens of factors” you listed are inputs to the reasonableness analysis, not a replacement for it. Courts don’t ask whether an officer made every perfect tactical decision beforehand. They ask whether, at the moment shots were fired, a reasonable officer could perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Prior conduct can inform that analysis; it does not magically erase it. You’re arguing application — whether the threat had passed, whether alternatives existed, whether positioning was reckless. That’s a legitimate debate. What you’re still not doing is disproving the legal standard itself. Screaming “fascist” and pretending the law says “any mistake voids self‑defense” may feel satisfying, but it isn’t what courts apply — in Minnesota or anywhere else.
YOU ARE A FUCKING NEANDERTHAL. DO YOU KNOW THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?
NOTHING I LISTED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH “MOMENT”.
THEY SPEAK HOLISTICALLY TO THE ENTIRE ENCOUNTER.
THE ONLY TENUOUS “THREAT” IS A FRACTION OF A SECOND OF A CAR IDLING IN DRIVE, WITH WHEELS CLEARLY ANGLED AWAY*
EVERY OTHER FACT POINTS TO AN ACT OF MURDER IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BY A JACKED UP THUG.
THESE ARE NOT FUCKING “TACTICS”. THESE ARE FACTS PROVING THE CRIME IN QUESTION BEYOND ANY DOUBT.
THERE IS NO DEBATE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU IMAGINE ONE.
IF YOU THINK THERE IS YOU ARE A FASCIST.
You don’t need to put on a fucking powdered wig and gavel to see that an innocent woman was executed with absurd force. Go suck some Nazi cock on a qanon forum, you’ll have a better time
*dude had a front row view of her turning the steering wheel btw
You’re confusing scope of evidence with the legal decision point. Courts absolutely look at the entire encounter — but they do so to evaluate whether the officer’s perception was objectively reasonable at the moment deadly force was used. That’s not semantics, and it’s not optional. It’s how self-defense law works in Minnesota and federally. Declaring “there is no debate” and labeling disagreement as fascism doesn’t make it so. Courts don’t decide cases by caps lock, insults, or moral certainty — they decide them by applying that exact framework.