this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2026
476 points (99.6% liked)

politics

27087 readers
3310 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

(Older article, relevant today)

  • Border Patrol agents have intentionally and unnecessarily stepped in front of moving cars to justify using deadly force against vehicle occupants.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 52 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The report is especially scathing in its critique of agents who’ve stood in front of moving vehicles, recommending that they “get out of the way…as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in front of such vehicles.” The authors add:

It should be recognized that a half-ounce (200-grain) bullet is unlikely to stop a 4,000-pound moving vehicle, and if the driver…is disabled by a bullet, the vehicle will become a totally unguided threat… Obviously, shooting at a moving vehicle can pose a risk to bystanders including other agents.

That's the extra stupidness of this who "self-defense" claim. Even if the guy was actually in danger, even if it had actually been her intent to mow him down... the response was not defensive in the slightest. The danger was a moving vehicle that might be intended to hit him His response was to ensure that vehicle kept moving, and to now do so completely aimlessly and make it an even bigger threat, while making sure that at minimum one person died in the process. And that's beside the fact that he voluntarily walked right into the only path her vehicle could have taken before shooting her. What a masterful defensive strategist you are.

"Well I thought the guy was gonna shoot me with his revolver, so I shot him in the face first, then I took his revolver, gave the cylinder a spin, put the barrel to my temple and pulled the trigger. When that chamber proved to be unloaded, I started flipping the gun wildly and pulling the trigger more in random directions to make sure the rest of the chambers were cleared. Thank god for my quick thinking. Defense."

[–] thelivefive@startrek.website 28 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

They don't want logic. They want a righteous kill.

I saw someone say the officer's cell phone video wasn't released to clear him, it was released so people could see that the women were being contentious and were lesbians, therefore showing maga it was a good kill.

It's not about does it make sense. It's "Were they the enemy?" To maga they were.