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?
Huge mistake on her part that cost her life. It was very unfortunate. But anyway, it was self defense. The ICE agent clearly thought she was going to run him over with the SUV, and he had to make a split second decision. She should not have tried to take off.
Calling this murder is beyond ridiculous.
I know this is pointless since you’ve already put on the obstinate troll hat but here goes.
First, one of this things they teach to cops is not stand in front of a vehicle that can run you over (my son is a cop). You keep at least an arms length between you and the vehicle and never in its path of motion. The ICE officer should not have been in that position in the first place.
Secondly if he was worried about his own safety his first instinct would have been jumping to the side, not pulling his weapon.
Thirdly, his situational awareness would have noted the direction of the tires, the demeanor of the driver, the lack of aggressive behavior, etc.
He did not fear for his life. It was not self defense. Had the driver been aiming for him, shooting the driver does not immediately stop the car. Shooting the driver would cause the car to accelerate which it did. He was a bully that wanted to punish anyone who disobeyed or disrespected him. He had already been injured before for making stupid decisions based on his lack of situational awareness. If anything it was more like PTSD and he should not have been in that situation in the first place.
It is attitudes like yours that creates the environments that allow these assholes to continue terrorizing people. Being an undocumented immigrant is not a reason to be shot. Being a mom who didn’t listen to a fascist is also not a reason to be shot.
With being said, please eat a bag of dicks.
The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the SUV until it began reversing. His perception of imminent danger had to be judged in split seconds. Courts don’t expect officers to make perfect decisions — only reasonable ones based on what they saw at the moment. Video and reports show he was struck by the car, which supports that he faced a real and immediate threat when he acted.
You are blind or a liar. Given your history, you’re a fascist liar that needs to be banned for spreading lies and hate.
Calling people liars or fascists doesn’t change the actual evidence. The legal focus remains on whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat in that split second, not on social media narratives or insults.
Eat a bag of dicks
If that’s the best you’ve got, you’ve already lost the argument. Insults don’t replace facts or legal reasoning.
I said, eat a bag of dicks.
Personal attacks don’t substitute for facts or sound legal reasoning.
Or, like, maybe, you should go eat a bag of dicks.
If that’s your argument, congratulations — you’ve lost. Insults aren’t a debate.
Found another lying boomer shithead.
Name-calling isn’t evidence.
Boo hoo, the fascist wants to be treated with respect instead of as the lying piece of shit that he is. We like doxxing you assholes.
Threatening doxxing crosses the line. That’s not debate, accountability, or activism — it’s harassment, and it puts real people at risk. If you ever want to argue facts or law without threats, that’s different. This isn’t.
Cry more little fascist scum. This isn’t corpo controlled internet. No one will save you.
This has crossed into harassment and threats. If you want to talk facts or ideas without abuse, that’s different. This isn’t.
Removed by mod
That’s a direct endorsement of violence. I’m not engaging with threats, intimidation, or attempts to justify harm.
Evidence does no good with your lying shit for brains ass. People have already cited the evidence, the policies and the laws the federal terrorist broke. You have no thinking skills critical or otherwise.
Insults aren’t evidence, and certainty isn’t a verdict.
mate you can fuck right off back to facebook with that shit
That’s not a response to the argument — it’s just an admission you don’t have one.
no, it’s a response to a comment that doesn’t deserve a response
and your further replies only show that you don’t deserve a response
fuck off and die, asshole
If that’s where you’re at, then we’re done here. I’m not interested in trading insults or threats — especially when there’s nothing substantive left to discuss.
Removed by mod
yo to whatever mod removed my comment without notification of why, please explain what rule it broke
Death wishes aren’t discussion.
where is there a death wish?
also, who said this was a discussion?
There was a death wish. I am glad the moderator removed your comment.
This looks like an astroturfing account, only ever comments on political stuff parroting the fascist lines.
Should we be honored to have gotten big enough to spend resources on for astroturfing?
“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.
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.
That’s exactly how JD Vance would phrase it.
I suppose we watched the same videos.
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.
You’re taking the White House at face value, huh?
Independent critical thinking.
Here is critical thinking. Dictators, evil ones, love to feed their lies, show their force, defend his evil soldiers. The reason is to get everyone obey him, as we see with billionares, take huge bribes and get as much money as possible, we also see this. He was caught lying many many times, openly gets bribed on tv. There are evidences that he is child rapist, murderer. Yet, right now when he wants to protect his bad soldiers, it is pretty logical that what he wrote about this situation is another lie. Why are you protecting lying pedo corrupted dictator?
I’m not defending anyone personally or morally — I’m discussing the legal standard for self-defense and use of force. Whether you dislike a politician, agency, or official does not change how the law evaluates whether an officer’s actions were reasonable at the moment force was used. Also, there is no credible evidence that Trump is a child rapist or murderer. You were just making stuff up. You’re free to argue about alleged corruption or misconduct separately, but that’s a different question from the legal framework governing self-defense, which is what I’ve been addressing.
I mean they were unlawful lol. It was not a self defense he was chasing her and reassured that she is dead or how he called her “fucking dumb bitch”. I think you need medical assesment as your thought processes are at least strange and abnormal
You’re confusing policy violations and offensive language with the legal test for self-defense. Courts judge reasonableness at the moment force is used, not based on hindsight, profanity, or unrelated claims. Insults aren’t an argument — evidence is.
I wanna hear this critical thinking you did, after watching the multiple angles of video evidence.
The critical thinking is exactly what the law uses: judges and juries don’t evaluate actions by slow-motion reconstructions or hindsight. They look at what a reasonable person in that moment would have perceived as an imminent threat. Watching multiple angles after the fact doesn’t change the fact that he had to make a split-second decision under stress — which is exactly what self-defense law is designed to account for.
The ICE agent in question had previously been dragged 50
feetYARDS by a vehicle as well. You’d think he’d have learned not to step in front of cars:https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-officer-fatally-shot-minnesota-woman-was-dragged-car-june-immigrat-rcna252992
He has learned self defense rather than being run over by an SUV.
Gestapo trooper on pogrom duty is spooked by horse stampede. Later, places himself in front of another horse and shoots the rider.
Government and media say “Clearly, she was a Judeo-Bolshevik terrorist.”
Chancellor threatens to invade the Sudetenland.
This analogy only works if you assume the conclusion first — that ICE is equivalent to the Gestapo and therefore any force used against them is justified. That’s rhetoric, not analysis. The actual legal question is whether there was an imminent threat at the moment force was used. Nazi analogies don’t answer that, and they don’t substitute for evidence or self-defense law.
yes, yes they are
If we’re going to debate this seriously, let’s focus on specific policies and actions, not just emotional labels.”
spoken like a true politician. have a look at history - something we’re taught a lot of in Europe, especially WWII - and ask yourself in what ways ICE isn’t going down the Gestapo route. ironic to be about “liberty” when civilians get stripped of their rights for just existing and killed for expressing their opinions
remember your views when the US eventually turns into a totalitarian state and starts arresting your loved ones because they have opposing views
Invoking the Gestapo isn’t analysis — it’s a rhetorical shortcut. The Gestapo operated in a one-party dictatorship, without courts, warrants, due process, or constitutional limits, and carried out mass torture and extermination. ICE operates under statutory authority, judicial review, warrants, and is regularly challenged — and constrained — in U.S. courts. You can oppose immigration enforcement, criticize tactics, or argue for different laws without collapsing everything into “WWII = therefore Gestapo.” That analogy strips real historical atrocities of meaning and shuts down serious debate. And no — people aren’t being “killed for expressing opinions.” That kind of framing ignores facts and replaces them with fear narratives. If you think specific rights were violated in this case, name them and point to evidence. Otherwise this is speculation, not history. Liberty isn’t protected by declaring every institution you dislike to be Nazi-adjacent. It’s protected by applying law, evidence, and proportionality consistently — even when you don’t like the agency involved.
that’s a lot of words for not wanting to see or admit that change is a gradual process. ofcourse trumpywumpy won’t immediately and aggressively install such kind of police - the backlash would be too immense and he’s not THAT stupid (one might think). it starts small and gradually evolves to something worse. from detaining people who are known to not have papers, to detaining and questioning everyone that has a different kind of skin color, to just randomly search houses or raid workplaces, to monitoring phones and communications … and thus it grows into more gestapo-like territory.
Warning about gradual authoritarianism isn’t proof it’s happening. If you think lines are being crossed now, cite facts — otherwise it’s just a slippery slope argument replacing evidence.
Are you stupid? No it doesn’t?
There is no mention of use of force being justified. Do you even know how to read, or are you just copy-pasting talking points from an AI?
Nazi analogies aren’t evidence. Self-defense is judged on imminent threat and reasonableness, not rhetoric or insults.
So are you planning on engaging with the point or do you plan to continue to ignore things you can’t refute?
I am engaging — by rejecting rhetoric and focusing on the legal standard. If you think the threat wasn’t imminent or reasonable, make that case directly.
Here, since you seem to have trouble reading:
The analogy doesn’t address the legal standard. What does matter under DHS policy and legal analysis is whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat at the moment shots were fired — not whether a hashtag slogan or metaphor mentions “justification.”
Lick the boot harder. I don’t think they can see their faces in them quite yet.
Ah yes, the classic substitute for an argument.
It wasn’t supposed to be an argument. It was supposed to be an insult.
If the taste of boot wax gets to be too overpowering, I hear buckshot makes a good mouthwash.
When a discussion turns into insults, it’s because your argument failed.
“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.”
The SUV was being driven toward the officer.
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.
Removed by mod