488215

Protests continue after ICE agent fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis

2d 13m ago by lemmy.world/u/jordanlund in politics from www.cbc.ca

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?

"Fatally shooting" someone is called murder when it's calculated and done to the back of the head of a mother trying to drive away BTW

People say it was 2nd degree murder, but I say it was 1st degree. To me, he had enough time to decide on killing someone.

In my previous comment I said that I thought manslaughter would be the appropriate charge. But no, interfering with medical aid demonstrates clear intent to escalate it to 1st degree.

Failure to render medical aid, and actively interfering with medical aid from others demonstrates intent and escalates it from 2nd to 1st.

Based on his behavior before, during, and after the murder it’s clear that it was planned, calculated, and premeditated. He was intentionally creating the circumstances to give himself an opportunity to murder somebody.

He is a murderer and deserves to hang.

He also has a habit of standing in front of moving vehicles. I wonder what percentage of ICE officers have been in 2 vehicle related incidents within months of each other. Oh, just this guy? He's either the most unlucky man, REALLY stupid, or internationally putting himself in harm's way so he can draw his weapon...but the logical thing in Trumpers' minds is to blame the woman that he had the wherewithall to shoot in the face, accurately, several times, while simultaneously being "hit by a car" and "fearing for his life". Seemed pretty cool, calm, calculated and unphased to me though...

It was said that the guy reached in through the window in that earlier incident, and that entanglement is why he was dragged along. After all, a predator wouldn't want to let such fresh prey go after he gets his hands on one, yes?

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.

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?

spend resources on for astrosturfing?

Plenty of people do it for free.

“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.

Ah yes, you know your rules of debate and argument well.

It’s just, well, that (and the whole outspoken fascist thing, let’s be real) won’t win you any affection or interest at parties, won’t endear you to anybody else, but hey, your role model Stephen has an office down the hall, and he’s just as lonely and extremely racist and fascist as you are! If he’s in the White House, just like you, then maybe you could make something of yourself.

Does Erica Kirk feel like a couch on the inside?

Personal insults aren’t arguments — they’re what people use when they don’t have one.

Argument this, argument that, all you ever fucking do is argue.

No wonder Usha’s cheating on you.

Trash talk ≠ legal analysis. Try again if you want a discussion.

I don’t want legal analysis. I want to mock you because you chose fascism instead of actual strength and community. You could have picked something great, like love and respect, but you went with spinelessness and bootlicking.

Mockery doesn’t change reality. You’re free to assign labels and cast moral judgments, but that doesn’t turn disagreement into fascism or debate into weakness. If you want to discuss ideas instead of trading insults, that’s a conversation I can have. Otherwise, this is just performance.

Honestly, folk around here don’t like your fascist fuckery. I bet you’d be well received in the White House press room where you belong, Mr. Vance. Barring that, the sack of makeup and Diet Coke you keep in the Oval Office has a platform called Truth Social, where you can advocate for people getting shot by ICE all day long.

Fuck off.

You can scream “fascist” all day, but that doesn’t turn assumptions into facts or social media outrage into evidence.

That's exactly how JD Vance would phrase it.

I suppose we watched the same videos.

Fuck your "debate". It is unquestionable that Renee was murdered. You are a fascist piece of shit.

If something is “unquestionable,” it should be easy to explain without insults. Calling it murder doesn’t make it so — that’s a legal conclusion that depends on evidence, intent, and the standard for self-defense. You’re free to be angry. You’re not entitled to replace facts with abuse and call that certainty.

NO. I reject your sanewashing bullshit, because it is both falsehood and in service to evil.

I watched the videos. From every damn angle before and after Johnathan Ross killed Renee. He knew what he was doing, and had absolutely no remorse for what he did. He killed someone, and fled the scene of the crime.

You have no integrity, "Liberty Forever". The only liberty you possess is the kind that is completely void of morality, that wants to be free of consequence and justice. No different from Trump, Noem, Kash, and so many other horrible people that are leading my nation into destruction and suffering. You are a monster just like them, the only difference being that you lack their authority to hurt people.

Your words must be called out for what they are: deceitful and malicious.

You’re stating certainty about intent, motive, and state of mind that you cannot actually prove from video footage alone. That’s not “calling out evil,” it’s replacing legal standards with moral conviction. Watching videos — even from multiple angles — does not establish premeditation, lack of remorse, or criminal intent. Those are precisely the things that investigations, testimony, and courts exist to determine. Declaring them settled because you feel certain isn’t justice; it’s a shortcut around it. You’re free to believe the actions were reckless, wrong, or deserving of discipline or reform. But branding disagreement as “malicious” or “evil” doesn’t strengthen your case — it just signals that you’ve moved from argument to accusation. If this discussion requires demonization instead of evidence, then there’s nothing productive left to say.

Renee Good's final words to her murderer: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you.”

Pretty damn clear that Renee didn't do anything wrong.

Her final words and what we see in the footage are heartbreaking and deserve compassion. But resolving whether this was justified use of force requires a careful legal and factual investigation — not just emotional reaction or viral clips.

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.

He broke every department policy in going in front of the vehicle. He raised his firearm before she began to move again. By the time he actually shoots both feet are completely clear of the vehicle, and his entire body is leaning over the front of the hood. By the time he is at his 2nd shot he is to the entire side of the vehicle, shooting into an open windows his third shot goes into the back of her head.

It's pathetic that someone who has shown they have eyes can see this is any other way then "This ice agent wanted to kill somebody and created a reason to do so". It was premeditated murder.

Thankfully I'm not a lawyer, and neither are you. However, even MPLS police chief, MN BCA, and Governor seems to disagree with you, so maybe stop happily eating kristi noems shit and have some actual critical thoughts for once.

Policy violations ≠ premeditated murder. Intent has to be proven, not asserted, and self-defense is judged on reasonable perception at the moment — not frame-by-frame hindsight or political reactions.

Maybe go back to grade school as well, since clearly you've forgotten how to fully read and analyze what someone has written.

The video evidence from multiple angles shows that the ICE agent who fired his weapon was not standing directly in front of the SUV until the driver reversed. In other words, he wasn’t stationary in front of the car the whole time — the vehicle’s own reverse motion put the ICE agent in front of the car.

The law still distinguishes between violating policy and committing murder. Intent must be proven, and self-defense is judged by what was reasonable at that moment, not by hindsight or political opinion.

Boy your reading comprehension is awful, not to mention apparently your eyes as well. He was very much in front of the car, before reversing, while reversing, and then only after she cranked the wheel to avoid him entirely did he step out of the way to shoot her in the head.

Don't know what else to say man, already told you you're not a lawyer and that even our item police chief, and DHS itself say the guy was in the wrong and had no reason to shoot, because he broke policy and did everything in the exact opposite way as they're trained.

I'm sure you'll just ignite everything I've read though and repeat exactly the same thing you have been.

He clearly was not in front of the car reversing. She did not avoid him, the car clearly hit him. All few shots were within split seconds.

In self-defense law, actions are judged in a split second, not with slow-motion hindsight. The standard is what a reasonable person in that moment would perceive as an imminent threat, based on limited, rapidly unfolding information. You don’t get the benefit of pause, perfect angles, or later analysis — you act on what you reasonably believe is happening right then. That’s why courts focus on perception at the moment force is used, not whether later video review or commentary thinks a different choice might have been possible.

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.

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.

there was no death wish in my comment, to my memory. seems like you misunderstood the words.

to be clear, stating that I would be pleased with somebody's death is not in any way a wish for their death to happen.

The moderator and I both agreed it was a death wish.

then you're both idiots who don't understand what words mean

The moderator and I know what you meant.

I'm telling you what I meant. what I meant is not what you're saying it meant.

jesus christ are you really this stupid

Intent aside, a reasonable person would interpret your comment as inappropriate.

a reasonable person would interpret you to be acting in bad faith and agree with not tolerating your bullshit

Your comment was deleted by the moderator. Mine wasn't.

the sky is blue

Let's just say we're actually arguing self-defense, how does shooting the driver of a car in front of you eliminate that danger? If he had actually been in danger he would have been ran over because after murdering her the car accelerated forward.

Self-defense isn’t judged by hindsight or perfect outcomes. The law doesn’t require an officer to make a perfect decision — only a reasonable one based on what he perceived in split seconds.

I can't say what he perceived but multiple agents were circling the vehicle while the driver was trying to leave, they yelled conflicting demands which included telling her to leave and then tried to open her door when she hadn't done anything warrenting her apprehension, within seconds shooting her from the side of her vehicle. ICE has already murdered people, you could argue that she feared for her life, and rightfully so. She was in her right to defend herself from the masked unidentified agents apparently trying to abduct her.

The legal standard doesn’t disappear just because the situation was chaotic. What matters in a self‑defense analysis is what a reasonable officer reasonably believed at the exact moment the shots were fired, not how the encounter started or what someone felt later. Footage also shows the driver and her spouse talking rudely and appearing not fearful at all in the whole situation.

How the encounter started is entirely relevant. How can it be self-defense when the officer purposely and needlessly put themselves in danger? If you base an analysis solely on what the shooter says they felt in the moment how can you have any sort of objective investigation into any shooting?

The ICE agent wasn't directly in front of the car until the driver reversed the car. He didn't put himself in danger, the car motion did. Context matters, but the legal standard focuses on what a reasonable officer perceived at the exact moment the shots were fired, not how the encounter started. How the situation began can inform training or policy questions, but self‑defense under federal law is judged by split-second perceived threat, not hindsight or moral judgment.

Only an unreasonable person would believe that killing the driver of a car that you are no longer in front of would be self-defense. It goes against every policy I've seen related to use of force against drivers even if she had been intentionally ramming him. Maybe if this were a random person but he has been trained specifically about this scenario and has been in the job for ten years, cops have been charged for less in similar situations. He has no defense, but there likely won't be a legitimate trial anyway.

Given how fast things unfolded, you can’t expect an officer to make a perfect decision — only a reasonable one based on what he perceived in that split second. Even if the video later shows the officer wasn’t directly in front of the vehicle at the exact moment the shots were fired, the issue isn’t hindsight with perfect vision — it’s what a reasonable officer believed at that moment under intense pressure. Federal use‑of‑force policy explicitly says reasonableness is judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, not with 20/20 hindsight after reviewing multiple angles in super slow motion.

A reasonable person must have believed they could get out of the way of the vehicle, of which the driver was not accused of any crime and was not acting belligerent, because his feet and legs were almost entirely to the side of the vehicle before he shot, and he continued shooting through the side window. If he has such a lack of awareness or emotional instability that his perception becomes so easily warped he should not be trusted in that role. Furthermore it only unfolded that quickly because of aggressive actions of the officers. They pulled directly up to the vehicle, trapped it with their bodies while she tried to comply with their order to leave, while also shouting conflicting orders in the first instant they got up to the victim.

And if we are looking at the full picture, what could their justification be for lieing about having medics or blocking medical aid for over ten minutes? Then once arriving, blocking the ambulance down the road. Actions after the fact attest to a person's state of mind when committing the act. Why wouldn't they comply with an investigation and stay on scene right away as well? I really doubt there is any official policy that you should flee the scene after you shoot someone in the face even in self defense.

Tactics, positioning, and conflicting commands absolutely matter and can affect whether the officer’s perception was reasonable. But under the legal self‑defense standard, what counts is whether a reasonable officer in that exact moment perceived an imminent threat of serious harm. Hindsight, video slow‑motion, or how the encounter started don’t change that standard — though those factors are relevant for accountability, training, and evaluating reasonableness. What happened after the shooting — including delays in medical aid, communication issues, or how the officers handled the scene — is absolutely relevant for accountability, policy evaluation, and potential misconduct investigations. Those actions can inform judgments about professionalism and whether proper procedures were followed.

You’re taking the White House at face value, huh?

Independent critical thinking.

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.

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.

Shooting the driver of a vehicle does not make it magically come to a stop. If you had time to draw, aim, and shoot a weapon instead of moving yourself out of the way, then you obviously weren't that afraid. Which makes a claim of self-defense null.

Realistically, I'd probably call this manslaughter rather the murder. But no one here is defending the shooting.

"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."

Well that's pretty fucking clear and nearly impossible to misinterpret. But I'd bet that it will be.

Of course it will. Or it will be quietly changed and this version will be branded AI, woke lies, or whatever else the administration can think of.

But the internet never forgets. Their immunity ends when the regime falls.

It was a split second decision, and that decision making won't be perfect. Anyone with half a brain would understand this.

Then he shouldn't have a fucking gun. Give him a taser or a baton. Personally I'd fire any employee that incompetent though.

Also. The woman kept the accelerator pinned after he murdered her, because she was fucking dead. If he hadn't moved out of the way BEFORE SHOOTING HER, then he would have caused his own injury by shooting someone that had their foot on the accelerator, in the face.

He made so many moves and decisions in that split second that it almost makes you think he'd played this out in his head beforehand.

You’re narrating this as if it happened in slow motion with perfect information. Real-life self-defense isn’t judged by whether someone picked the optimal move after the fact, but whether there was a reasonable fear of imminent harm at the moment force was used.

His job description does not include playing vigilante and pulling anyone in his way out of cars. He chose to pretend he was invincible and step in front of a car with no bearing on his orders; she had nothing to do with their sweep, he just wanted to intimidate some middle aged soccer mom. Everything after that decision is blood on his hands.

There's a reason no real LEO would put their hands on a car in gear, let alone voluntarily walk in front of it to prevent it from moving unless it's a serious life-death situation. That shit will get you hurt, intentionally or not. She didn't have a weapon, she wasn't kidnapping anyone. If you think that middle aged woman needs to be caught and questioned you can always get her plate and follow up later.

Use your goddamn head before escalating a situation and you won't need to worry about self defense.

You’re arguing tactics and motives with the benefit of hindsight. The law doesn’t. A vehicle can be lethal force, and self-defense turns on perceived imminent threat in real time — not whether you think a different option might have been better afterward.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

🥾👅👅👅

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.

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 💩👅🥾👅👅

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.

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

I’ve stated the law accurately: use of deadly force is judged by objective reasonableness at the moment it’s used. You can argue the agent’s perception was unreasonable, but shouting, insults, and claims that I’m inventing the law don’t change the standard

objective reasonableness at the moment

Ok I'll bite since you're too dumb/cowardly to look it up yourself. There are dozens of factors that weigh on a ruling.

Number of belligerents (e.g multiple people surrounding the car)
Availability of other options (e.g not getting in front of the car, noting driver and plate for later)
Rules on force from authority, declaration of intent and proof of authority (e.g where are badges???)
Behavior before and after the event (e.g boxing in the car, not allowing medical attention)
Proportional force and timing of force (e.g dumping 3+ shots into the car well after the threat is gone)
Behavior of victim before the event (e.g victim is on a routine drive home on a public road)

And on and on and on.... But sure, keep chanting "moment it's used" as if it's a magic spell that grants your jack boots immunity. Go polish some soles you fucking fascist.

You just proved my point. Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated. Minnesota self‑defense law — like federal use‑of‑force law — evaluates objective reasonableness at the moment force is used, informed by surrounding circumstances. Those “dozens of factors” you listed are inputs to the reasonableness analysis, not a replacement for it. Courts don’t ask whether an officer made every perfect tactical decision beforehand. They ask whether, at the moment shots were fired, a reasonable officer could perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Prior conduct can inform that analysis; it does not magically erase it. You’re arguing application — whether the threat had passed, whether alternatives existed, whether positioning was reckless. That’s a legitimate debate. What you’re still not doing is disproving the legal standard itself. Screaming “fascist” and pretending the law says “any mistake voids self‑defense” may feel satisfying, but it isn’t what courts apply — in Minnesota or anywhere else.

Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated

YOU ARE A FUCKING NEANDERTHAL. DO YOU KNOW THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

NOTHING I LISTED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH "MOMENT".

THEY SPEAK HOLISTICALLY TO THE ENTIRE ENCOUNTER.

THE ONLY TENUOUS "THREAT" IS A FRACTION OF A SECOND OF A CAR IDLING IN DRIVE, WITH WHEELS CLEARLY ANGLED AWAY*

EVERY OTHER FACT POINTS TO AN ACT OF MURDER IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BY A JACKED UP THUG.

THESE ARE NOT FUCKING "TACTICS". THESE ARE FACTS PROVING THE CRIME IN QUESTION BEYOND ANY DOUBT.

THERE IS NO DEBATE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU IMAGINE ONE.

IF YOU THINK THERE IS YOU ARE A FASCIST.

You don't need to put on a fucking powdered wig and gavel to see that an innocent woman was executed with absurd force. Go suck some Nazi cock on a qanon forum, you'll have a better time

*dude had a front row view of her turning the steering wheel btw

You’re confusing scope of evidence with the legal decision point. Courts absolutely look at the entire encounter — but they do so to evaluate whether the officer’s perception was objectively reasonable at the moment deadly force was used. That’s not semantics, and it’s not optional. It’s how self-defense law works in Minnesota and federally. Declaring “there is no debate” and labeling disagreement as fascism doesn’t make it so. Courts don’t decide cases by caps lock, insults, or moral certainty — they decide them by applying that exact framework.

Faaaaaaaascist 🚨🚨🚨🥾👅👅👅

Edit: stfu about courts. Courts decide if you will or will not be punished for a crime, they have no bearing on if you committed a crime or not you fucking dope. Cases often get thrown out on paperwork technicalities or other procedural nonsense. That's why they don't declare a defendant innocent.

Self defense exists as a shared exception to our social contract limiting violence. This event does not fall under that umbrella. You can see the video yourself. The man murdered a woman in broad daylight. The courts could declare that he's innocent and immune and is owed damages for mental stress but that wouldn't change the fact that he's worthless murdering scum and everyone protecting him is just as bad.

We have multiple videos of this thug shooting her without any reasonable cause and beyond any reasonable limit of threat. We have videos of his gang circling the wagons and preventing bystanders from providing aid. We have videos of unarmed protesters getting loaded guns shoved in their face for pointing this unjustice out.

It's clear as day, but go on pretending that being a pedantic shit will solve your problems

Edit 2:

Watch this whole exchange from all angles with the shitbag's own footage. Tell me where the threat was. Did the self defense start when he switched his cellphone hand to the left while walking to the front of the car, clearly intending to pull his gun? When he's stepping in front of the car WHILE IT'S MOVING? When he said fucking bitch as she finished her talk and started to leave? Tell me with a straight face that man isn't a murderer. If you refuse to agree after seeing that much evidence, you are a fascist and an enemy to the American people.

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.

FUCK OFF YOU FASCIST PRICK, NOBODY LOVES YOU

You’re arguing from anger, not evidence.

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.

🔔🔔🔔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:

You deny it was a murder. You think that an ice agent has the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner on any street in America. Ergo, you discard 250 years of American ideological history; America's founding principles explicitly opposed to unilateral imposition of despotic violence. Ergo you are an enemy of America and a fascist.
You're scared to call it a murder, even on anonymous platforms hosted outside the US. By refusing to speak out on such a low level, basic incident you are granting tacit legitimacy to that unconstitutional action; willing to cover your eyes without complaint while America succumbs to its ideological antithesis. Ergo you are betraying the constitution by your inaction, making you an enemy and a fascist

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...

A. A rational law abiding officer making reasonable decisions for his own safety while performing the task he was sent out to do
B. A man cursing at a woman, lining himself up in front of her moving car, and shooting her 3 times in the head because this tough manly man couldn't handle a middle aged woman making passive aggressive remarks while she coached exactly what he should have done ("Take my liscense plate! It will be the same tomorrow")

"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

Tell me which part of this DHS policy supports the actions of the officer in the video:

"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."

Policy B is the relevant clause. The vehicle can qualify as deadly force if it presents an imminent threat and avoidance isn’t reasonably perceived as possible in that moment. Policy violations ≠ murder.

If they are going to blame untrained civilians when their split-second decisions are wrong, I'm not going to give trained personnel benefit of the doubt.

She should have listened to the ICE agent and got out of her car. The ICE agent was not going to run her over with an SUV.

ICE should just listen to protesters and go home. Then nobody gets hurt

That’s not how the rule of law works. Federal agencies don’t take orders from protesters, and enforcement can’t be contingent on who shouts the loudest. Noted Trump won the 2024 election, and the election has consequences. If you don't like what ICE are doing, go ahead and try to win elections.

Putting yourself in a dangerous position does not give you the right to shoot and kill someone.

If their training is to stand in front of vehicles, than it's their fault his life was in danger.

He made the decision to walk in front of a car. He had the choice long before that to remain out of harms way. He does not get to manufacture the excuse to murder someone.

He was just doing his job. Doesn't mean she has the right to run him over with her SUV.

He placed himself in a situation that could put his life in danger, and may escalate to lethal force if the person panics, which is likely what happened here.

It's likely a case of officer-created jeopardy.

“Officer-created jeopardy” isn’t a standalone rule that voids self-defense. Courts still ask the same question: at the moment force was used, was there a reasonable perception of imminent lethal threat? Even if earlier tactics are criticized, they don’t automatically negate the right to defend oneself when a vehicle is perceived as about to strike.

They escalated the situation, didn't follow the procedures and put everyone, including themselves at risk and someone died. There's at least some criminal negligence.

Claiming negligence based on outcomes ignores that the key question is what the officer reasonably perceived under stress, not what you think they should’ve done differently.

Negligence doesn’t judge hindsight outcomes, it judges whether the officer’s perceptions and decisions were reasonable under the circumstances. Stress explains behavior, it does not excuse it. If an officer's own actions created the danger, misread a non-threat, or violated training, policy, or basic tactical principles, then their perception under stress can itself be negligent.

The ICE agent in question had previously been dragged 50 ~~feet~~ YARDS 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.

Standing next to a car which was turning the opposite direction at their instruction? Sure.

Being near a vehicle during a stop isn’t the same as consenting to be run over. The relevant question is whether, at that moment, the officer reasonably perceived the vehicle as an imminent threat — not whether the car had been turning earlier.

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.

This analogy only works if you assume the conclusion first — that ICE is equivalent to the Gestapo

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.

all the things I've mentioned are already happening. but it's no concern to me, because I'm lucky to live in a free democracy that's not being ruled by a wannabe authoritarian. good luck in die Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika and don't forget to add some salt and pepper to the boots you're licking. what's liberty if not blindly following all the rules without question, right?

Calling normal enforcement “authoritarian” and adding insults doesn’t make a legal argument. Facts and evidence still matter.

remember that "legal" here means anything trumpy and his strategically appointed puppets decide for themselves what is deemed to be legal. you'd defend invading Greenland and call it legal because your Great Leader wants it to be ...

Extra judicial killings, unapproved acts of war, extra judicial deportations

Oops, there ya go. All real things that exist and are documented by ours and several other nations.

Listing charged phrases isn’t the same as proving they apply here. “Extrajudicial killing,” “acts of war,” and “extrajudicial deportation” are specific legal terms with defined elements — intent, authority, jurisdiction, and due process standards. You don’t establish them by assertion; you establish them with findings, rulings, or documented patterns that meet those definitions. Yes, abuses by governments exist and have been documented globally. That doesn’t mean every controversial enforcement action automatically qualifies, nor does it excuse skipping the legal analysis required to reach those conclusions. If you believe those labels apply in this case, the burden is to show how the facts meet the legal criteria — not just that similar abuses have occurred somewhere before. Conflating real historical abuses with an unresolved incident isn’t accountability. It’s shortcutting the argument.

Hey dipshit the courts he's defying already proved and ruled on it. Nice try. He's openly and illegally defying court orders.

Courts can issue rulings and orders, but whether someone is actually defying them — and whether that defiance is “illegal” — is ultimately determined through legal processes and enforcement mechanisms, not social media declarations. Calling it “openly illegal” doesn’t replace due process or evidence.

That's not how it works. Courts don't determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.

Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.

Are you stupid?

You’re misrepresenting how the legal process works. Courts can determine guilt or order compliance, but enforcement and due process are what make a ruling effective. Simply asserting “it’s illegal” on social media doesn’t make it so in practice — it’s still a legal process, not a declaration of opinion. Name-calling doesn’t strengthen your point. If you want to explain how a court ruling has been legally enforced or adjudicated, go ahead — otherwise this is just rhetoric.

But we aren't simply asserting that it's illegal. There was a court case. It was ruled on. It was defied by the president. It is illegal to defy a court order.

It's that simple. Do you need me to quote legal codes at you?

Again. Are you stupid? Rage bait? Probably rage bait.

You’re way oversimplifying the situation. Yes, courts can issue rulings, and failing to comply with a court order can lead to contempt or other enforcement measures. But whether an action constitutes an enforceable violation isn’t automatic — it depends on the specific ruling, the scope of the order, and whether formal enforcement or contempt proceedings have been carried out. Simply saying someone ‘defied the court’ doesn’t make it legally finalized or proven beyond process. If a court formally finds contempt or imposes sanctions, that’s the legally enforceable part. Until then, it’s a matter under investigation or adjudication, not a settled legal fact. Also, name-calling doesn’t make the legal argument stronger — it just obscures the issue. Let’s stick to the actual legal process if we want a meaningful discussion.”

Btw you failed to adequately respond to my previous comment, so here, you may try again:

That's not how it works. Courts don't determine what is illegal, they determine through evidence whether or not someone has done something that is illegal.

Which was done, and yes, what they did was illegal. And then they defied the courts. Which is illegal.

Are you stupid?

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.

The SUV was being driven toward the officer.

It wasn't.

The wheel was turned to the right, away from the ICE agent on the left

He pulled and aimed his gun at her face clearly before the car switched from moving backward to moving forward

2 of the 3 shots went through the drivers side window. Ask yourself how someone being run over in the front can shoot the driver through the side window

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.

Sorry, but there's a bright red tag next your name that says "Bootlicker". That means you get the bootlicker pic. I don't make the rules. Feel free to block me if you're that sensitive.

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.

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.

In fact, intentionally putting yourself into dangerous situations where you are forced to respond in "self-defense" is codified into the law and is blatantly illegal.

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

That's not what's being argued here. You seem to be getting your threads mixed up- probably because the AI attempting to rationalize your arguments is getting confused by all the different contexts.

You lost the argument and then say that's not what's being argued here? You should just take the loss and move on.

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.

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:

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?

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.”

Okay, but that's not what was being discussed.

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.

You said this, and I challenged this claim. You have failed to refute this challenge, and still are.

The analogy does not need to presuppose that assertion to work.

Maybe if you were literate and not using an AI to talk for you? Maybe then you could adequately respond.

The analogy doesn’t actually address the legal standard that matters here. The question in this case isn’t whether ICE is like some historical regime — it’s whether the agent’s use of deadly force met the objectively reasonable imminent‑threat standard under federal and state law.

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.

That’s a direct endorsement of violence. I’m not engaging with threats, intimidation, or attempts to justify harm.

Yet you continue to engage. Curious. Fascists can't think or help themselves it seems.

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.

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.

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.

The officer can argue all he wants that from his point of view it appeared for a split second that she was going to run him over (although he'd have to explain why he shot her after he was obviously no longer in the car's path).

But in the video footage it is obvious that she was not trying to run him over and trying to pin domestic terrorism charges on her is a blatant cover-up attempt.

Radio-Canada journalist Azeb Wolde-Giorghis reports from Minneapolis, where tensions are high — but sombre at the site of a vigil for the 37-year-old woman who was killed by an ICE agent on Wednesday.

Joe, a resident who lives walking distance from the scene of the shooting, told CBC he came by because he "just felt the need to come out and pay homage to this mother."

"It's very tough for our community; we've had this happen before and I love this community," he said, referencing the 2020 death of George Floyd at the hands of police — an incident that took place less than 2 kilometres from this scene.

He continued: "I'm sad, and I've got a little bit of rage in me that I need to pacify, because I'm just pissed right now. And I think a lot of people who care about our community are pissed. We don't want an invading force — that's so un-American. Like, all of this is so un-American to us."

Joe then gestured to the two people standing next to him who had also come to pay respects to Good, saying they were from China and Switzerland.

"To try and explain this to them, it's just mind-boggling."

Here is the latest video of the murder, from the butcher's own camera.

Renee Good's final words to her murderer: “That’s fine dude, I’m not mad at you.”

In relation to this, thinking about a new community for Political Activism. Calls to action, that kind of thing.

I think that's a great idea, I often lament not being more connected to events and calls to action because I don't have reddit or meta apps. I often don't hear about things until after they've occurred.

The cure to this is getting involved with activist or community groups in your area

What I don't get is how ICE is still allowed to walk around masked up and unidentified as individuals.

Is there any kind of coordinated sousveillance being done by activists? These people should all be getting identified because even if another admin comes in, before the Republican one exits, they'll be covering up/shredding records on who is employed in ICE.