this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2026
476 points (99.8% liked)

politics

30167 readers
3307 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

What a crock of shit

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social 2 points 21 hours ago (7 children)

I'll be amazed if anybody sentenced here will be in prison 5 years from today. The guy who shot the gun might be an exception because only a crazy person is firing guns off at other humans like this, but the rest is just bizarre.

It's never acceptable to vandalize shit but the sentences are wildly excessive.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 11 hours ago

The guy who shot the police only did so after police pointed a loaded firearm at unarmed protestors

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 32 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

It's never acceptable to vandalize shit but the sentences are wildly excessive.

Really, never?

[–] immutable@lemmy.zip 24 points 20 hours ago

Boston Tea Party was truly a tragedy. All that tea, from honest hardworking subjects of the king.

It is a deep and everlasting shame that America won that war, started with such a despicable act of vandalism.

/s

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 18 hours ago (1 children)
[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

I’m not familiar with that event.

[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

Stonewall riots. The thing that kickstarted the gay rights movement in the US

[–] blitzen@lemmy.ca 1 points 16 hours ago

Thanks. I definitely know of the incident, but didn't recognize the photo.

[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 8 points 17 hours ago

The Nazi literally shot first.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 21 points 20 hours ago

The guy that fired the gun did so in response to the cop pulling his gun and firing first. Self defence.

He actually has a case that could overturn Qualified Immunity, should anyone actually let his lawyers know about the full text of §1983, not the illegally amended text that was copied into the Federal Register in 1884. The relevant Congressional Record is 1881.

[–] brygphilomena@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 20 hours ago

Vandalism and property damage is not violence.

Drawing a weapon on nonviolent protesters is a threat of violence.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 14 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

The guy who shot the gun might be an exception because only a crazy person is firing guns off at other humans like this

Only a crazy person shoots a gestapo thug in defense of others? (According to the article, the thug had his gun drawn and was about to start shooting protestors.)

[–] Prove_your_argument@piefed.social -5 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

Anyone discharging a firearm in a protest is insane man. Guns shouldn't even be there. I just imagine a giant crowd and stray bullets striking indiscriminately. I've lost multiple friends to bullets. One was a stray shot not intended to hit her at all, but she's still dead and her sons grew up without a mom.

The moment someone opens fire is an escalation point which can go a couple of ways. What if shooting the guy resulted in all of the officers drawing weapons and starting shooting? what if dozens or hundreds of lives were lost? The moment weapons fire is heard is the moment everyone assumes there is an active shooter and reacts. It's quite literally suicidal to shoot at cops, and they didn't just risk their life, they risked the lives of everyone else there.

So yeah, no. I don't really prescribe to shooting cops who haven't fired a shot and are surrounded by witnesses or cameras. Just like I don't condone them shooting unarmed protestors.

[–] quick_snail@feddit.nl 4 points 11 hours ago

I remember being at Occupy protests and watching and experiencing violence and unlawful arrests from police

Then on the national call we realized that cities with open carry laws didn't experience such violence from police, because natives joined with guns.

We have very recent history of guns keeping protestors safe from police

[–] Eldritch@piefed.world 17 points 21 hours ago* (last edited 21 hours ago)

Apparently there's some evidence to suggest he fired in response to the officer pulling his weapon. But the fact remains. If you're going to fire at an officer of the state. Commit. Even if you miss they will try to lock you up for life. There won't be an "understanding". Or no harm no foul with community service. The state will bury you one way or another.

Hopefully many of these with be appealed as they're fucking ridiculous. But I don't have any great hopes.