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?
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.
BZZZZT Wrong answer. Please review my comment about the purpose of law, the court system and social contracts.
I didn’t ask you what the court would say. I didn’t ask about hindsight. I asked what you saw in that video. You refuse to answer. Why would that be?
You don’t get to plead the 5th here, you’re not on trial. Why can’t you tell me? Are you struggling to resolve the basic facts of the video with your dear leader’s marching orders? Trumps administration had no problem delivering their self defense verdict a handful of hours after the shooting, before they even had access to half of this evidence. Surely you can support your stance easily?
I want you to tell me, with no detail spared, why that woman deserved to be shot 3 times in the head
I saw a reasonably rational law abiding officer making reasonably rational decisions for his own safety while performing the task he was sent out to do.
Lmao good you admit you’re a fascist! That’s progress! Now support that narrative with any shred of evidence.
Tell me! List your supporting evidence from that video! Tell me what exactly made her an urgent threat? What about her demeanor was triggering your fight-or-flight? Explain to me how holding a fucking phone while walking in front of a moving car is keeping anyone safe? Tell me how leaping at the opportunity to send followup shots into the window (well after the car was moving away) was a perfectly normal decision? Why was a rational agent going against all guides and regulations by killing this woman behind the wheel of a 2 ton SUV? That’s just extended self defense even if it gets a bystander killed?
Or does fear give you a free pass to do anything you want? “Oh oops he did literally everything wrong in this situation, audibly escalated the situation and got shot someone for no reason. But SeLf DeFeNsE means we can discard all that problematic context”
I’ve been closer to getting run over in a fucking crosswalk than that agent’s “brush with death” and somehow I managed not to murder anyone…
I’m not saying everything the officer did was flawless. What matters legally for self-defense is whether, in that split second, he reasonably perceived an imminent threat of serious harm or death.
“What matters is that if I close my eyes to what’s happening and deny reality they’ll keep shooting the other instead of me”
Best of luck with that pal. Be careful dropping your kids off at school btw, I hear there’s some heroes patrolling our streets who might view that as a lethal threat. They’ll be well within their rights to splatter your brain all over the back seat, but maybe if you grovel hard enough and tell them how you voted you’ll be able to calm them down. Maybe not, who knows, you’ll be too dead to argue
I get that this is emotional, but threats and insults don’t change the legal facts. What matters under law is whether, in that split second, a reasonable officer perceived an imminent threat of serious harm, not what we think in hindsight. Videos and analyses show the SUV moved while the agent was near it — whether or not it was intentional, courts focus on perceived danger, not perfect decisions.