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
"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."
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.
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.
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.