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:

  1. Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]

  2. Absolutely no calls for violent action.

  3. 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?

  • stickly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • libertyforever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • stickly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        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.

        • libertyforever@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

          • stickly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            Bro doesn’t know how to read the fucking law. I spelled it out for you, should I use crayons next time?

            🥾👅👅👅

            • libertyforever@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              2 days ago

              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.

              • stickly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                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.

                The legal standard is still reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used

                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 💩👅🥾👅👅

                • libertyforever@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  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.

                  • stickly@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    2 days ago

                    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