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?
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.
If that’s the best you’ve got, you’ve already lost the argument. Insults don’t replace facts or legal reasoning.
I wish you could stick to evidence and law but you don’t even have a proper understanding on the basics of the judicial system.
If you think I’ve misunderstood the law, then point to the specific legal standard or case you believe I’m getting wrong. Simply asserting that I ‘don’t understand the basics’ isn’t an argument. Self-defense turns on objective reasonableness and imminence at the moment force is used — that’s settled law. If you disagree with how that applies here, explain where and why, with evidence
here ya go buddy. Go ahead and try again.
An agent’s location in the moments before a threat emerges does not negate the reality of an oncoming vehicle being used in a way that can cause death or serious injury. Once the vehicle moved toward him, the agent was entitled to respond to the immediate danger he reasonably perceived, regardless of how quickly the situation developed.