politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
Here's a free tip bootlicker, practice pulling out your id niiiiice and slow
“Arguing I should ‘practice pulling out my ID slowly’ is about as relevant to the legal standard as telling someone to juggle while driving — completely absurd. What matters is whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat in that split second, not your random hypothetical.
Random hypothetical lmfao. Are you legitimately a little slow? I'd feel a little bad laughing at you
What matters is you think any goon has the God given right to shoot someone because the government gave them a gun and they might have gotten scared (and if they're not shooting you of course). On top of that you're cheering for the gestapo literally walking around asking for papers. It doesn't take rocket science to see how those mix.
So yes, practice pulling out your id very slowly while you lick their boots you fucking coward. Otherwise your infallible legal process will have to find a way to spoon gray matter back into your thick skull
Insults and wild hypotheticals don’t change the facts. The videos show the SUV moving forward as the officer fired — whether or not it was intentional, he had only split seconds to assess an imminent threat. Courts and federal use-of-force policy don’t expect perfect decisions, only reasonable ones under intense pressure. That’s the legal standard, not whatever caricature you’re trying to paint. Personal attacks don’t replace evidence or law. If you’re upset about what happened, the effective and responsible way to push for change is through peaceful protest and winning elections — not encouraging or celebrating violence against ICE, even if you strongly disagree with their actions.
Bro you couldn't make this shit up, your dumb ass troll persona is impeccable
The guy who murdered this woman is former police. A huge chunk of ICE are former police. These former police ^(now try to keep up here)^, are the same ones shooting kids for pulling out phones. They're the ones breaking into the wrong house and shooting sleeping children. They're the ones shooting teens in the back for running while wearing a hoodie. They're the ones who killed 1300 people in 2024, a record high and top 10 per capita worldwide.
Your logic is that they're going to turn a new leaf because they got a shiny new vest? You're a fucking clown bro
Buh bye boot licker, I truly hope you live to regret your dumbass comments
Collective guilt and rage dumps aren’t legal arguments. You’re listing unrelated tragedies to justify condemning this specific incident without applying the actual legal standard. Self-defense law doesn’t change based on your opinion of police, ICE, or statistics — it asks whether, in that moment, a reasonable officer perceived an imminent threat. You don’t get to replace evidence and law with slogans, insults, or ‘all cops are the same’ logic. And no — anger at institutions doesn’t justify violence against agents or rewriting legal standards after the fact. Accountability comes through investigations and courts, not mobs or moral absolutism.