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?
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.
Faaaaaaaascist 🚨🚨🚨🥾👅👅👅
Edit: stfu about courts. Courts decide if you will or will not be punished for a crime, they have no bearing on if you committed a crime or not you fucking dope. Cases often get thrown out on paperwork technicalities or other procedural nonsense. That’s why they don’t declare a defendant innocent.
Self defense exists as a shared exception to our social contract limiting violence. This event does not fall under that umbrella. You can see the video yourself. The man murdered a woman in broad daylight. The courts could declare that he’s innocent and immune and is owed damages for mental stress but that wouldn’t change the fact that he’s worthless murdering scum and everyone protecting him is just as bad.
We have multiple videos of this thug shooting her without any reasonable cause and beyond any reasonable limit of threat. We have videos of his gang circling the wagons and preventing bystanders from providing aid. We have videos of unarmed protesters getting loaded guns shoved in their face for pointing this unjustice out.
It’s clear as day, but go on pretending that being a pedantic shit will solve your problems
Edit 2:
Watch this whole exchange from all angles with the shitbag’s own footage. Tell me where the threat was. Did the self defense start when he switched his cellphone hand to the left while walking to the front of the car, clearly intending to pull his gun? When he’s stepping in front of the car WHILE IT’S MOVING? When he said fucking bitch as she finished her talk and started to leave? Tell me with a straight face that man isn’t a murderer. If you refuse to agree after seeing that much evidence, you are a fascist and an enemy to the American people.
You’ve moved from legal disagreement to moral absolutism, and those are not the same thing. You’re free to believe the shooting was immoral, unjustified, or even that the agent should be fired or prosecuted. What you don’t get to do is declare that the legal framework for self-defense doesn’t exist, or that disagreement itself is proof of fascism. Whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. That’s not “pedantry,” it’s how criminal liability is defined in a society governed by law rather than mob certainty. Courts don’t just decide punishment — they decide whether conduct meets the elements of a crime. You’ve made your moral judgment. I’ve explained the legal standard. We’re not debating evidence anymore — you’re demanding ideological agreement.
FUCK OFF YOU FASCIST PRICK, NOBODY LOVES YOU
You’re arguing from anger, not evidence.
Self-defense doesn’t exist when the position you are defending yourself from is one of your own creation.
There is no self-defense argument here.
You can’t cause an instigation, assault or kill someone, then claim self-defense. That’s not the way self-defense works.
He originally wasn’t directly in front of the car. It was the car’s reverse motion that put him directly in front of the car. Thus, he didn’t create danger himself.
He did when he engaged the vehicle instead of allowing them to leave the scene when ordered.
🔔🔔🔔Faaaaaascist
Ding dong numbnuts, guess what? The law is the written reflection of society’s moral code. Some things are so fundamental to that code that seeing hard evidence of the crime being committed becomes tautological and nothing more needs to be said.
There is no law saying that any individual, or even a mob, can’t call a murder a murder. That is by design, the USA preserves our constitutional right to free speech. We’re only restricted from enacting a punishment (that right is ceded by the mob to our government). Knowing that, there are two options here:
I’m demanding a basic stand that is to be expected of any human in 2025 (aside from the cowards conditioned to put their heads in the sand). It’s not even that hard. There is concrete evidence of a murder right in front of your eyes, just call it a murder.
And even beyond the lofty heights of justice you’re just making yourself look like a fucking idiot
You: watches someone commit murder from 5 different angles
…
You: uhh acktually whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. I’m gonna be a coward and hide behind papa Trump’s courts
Moral certainty is not a legal argument. Declaring “it’s obviously murder” is a conclusion, not evidence. Due process exists precisely to prevent people from substituting outrage for analysis. Disagreement isn’t fascism — it’s how law works.
Lmfao you’re such a joker. Just out here making yourself look like an idiot, blatantly denying reality, a perfect picture of cognitive dissonance. When they break into your house and shoot a loved one on a flimsy “self-defense” justification I hope you’re still preaching “legal argument”. 🥾👅👅👅
Disagreement isn’t fascism. Refusing to condemn Nazis murdering innocent people in public very much makes you a fascist cuck