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?
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.
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.
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.
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.