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?
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.
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.
She didn’t want to leave until all of a sudden she took off with the SUV and hit the ICE agent.
That’s not true, she was told to leave, right up until shooter decided she shouldn’t.
Again, this is all ICE instigated, it’s not self defense.
She shifted to drive and moved forward and the car hit the ICE agent, that was what caused the tragedy. Clearly self defense.
The ICE agent was not hit by the car, you can see that in the footage he recorded himself. Why are you lying for them?
https://youtu.be/rwwgUiNVSmc#t=5m19s
The ICE agent was hit by the car. Have you checked all the videos at different angles?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6fxKbXDjXxM
FUCK OFF YOU FASCIST PRICK, NOBODY LOVES YOU
You’re arguing from anger, not evidence.
🔔🔔🔔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
Threats, insults, and hyperbolic hypotheticals don’t change the legal framework. The law exists so that we don’t decide guilt based on anger or outrage, even in tragic or morally upsetting situations. Equating measured legal analysis with being “fascist” or a “cuck” is itself an ideological attack, not an argument. If you want to actually debate legality, focus on evidence and elements of the law, not moral posturing or ad hominem attacks.
FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH
Even on an obvious rage bait account like this, saying that dumb shit makes you a fascist cuck. There’s no debate here, just one fascist clown doing tricks for our entertainment 🤡👅👅👅👅💩👅👅👅
Resorting to screaming, insults, and performative name-calling doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms there’s no actual engagement with the legal points. I’m not here to win an insult contest; I’m discussing the law and evidence. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about legality, we can stick to facts, legal standards, and reasoning — otherwise this just becomes a circus of ad hominem attacks, which isn’t a debate.
Lololol I replied to all of your points and you gave no response. You’re like a broken record when you get backed into a corner “L L L Legal… Legality… Court… Ev ev evidence… S s self defense… Ad ad… ad hominem 😢”. You’re like a tanky defaulting to “read more theory” because you have no fucking response.
Long plodding replies don’t change the fact that your a cowardly fascist boot licker who can’t answer a simple question: We have a synced video compiled from half a dozen angles (including his own fucking perspective) over the full encounter. Is that…
“I’ll wait for the courts to tell me how to use by brain” is not an answer. Go watch that woman get shot 100 more times if you’re not sure. If your answer in the face of that overwhelming evidence is anything but B, you’re a fascist who’s just as bad as the goon pulling the trigger.
Now give an answer
Legal self-defense isn’t about hindsight or perfection — it’s about whether a reasonable officer in that split second perceived an imminent threat, which the footage supports. That’s why courts don’t require flawless decisions, only reasonable ones under the circumstances.