Mastodawn

jordanlund Jan 8

Protests continue after ICE agent fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis

https://lemmy.world/post/41344668

Protests continue after ICE agent fatally shoots woman in Minneapolis - Lemmy.World

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: 1) Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State] 2) Absolutely no calls for violent action. 3) 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?

amniotic druid Jan 8

“Fatally shooting” someone is called murder when it’s calculated and done to the back of the head of a mother trying to drive away BTW

libertyforever Jan 8

Huge mistake on her part that cost her life. It was very unfortunate. But anyway, it was self defense. The ICE agent clearly thought she was going to run him over with the SUV, and he had to make a split second decision. She should not have tried to take off.

Calling this murder is beyond ridiculous.

EndlessNightmare Jan 8

Shooting the driver of a vehicle does not make it magically come to a stop. If you had time to draw, aim, and shoot a weapon instead of moving yourself out of the way, then you obviously weren’t that afraid. Which makes a claim of self-defense null.

Realistically, I’d probably call this manslaughter rather the murder. But no one here is defending the shooting.

libertyforever Jan 9

It was a split second decision, and that decision making won’t be perfect. Anyone with half a brain would understand this.

FrostyTheDoo Jan 9

Then he shouldn’t have a fucking gun. Give him a taser or a baton. Personally I’d fire any employee that incompetent though.

Also. The woman kept the accelerator pinned after he murdered her, because she was fucking dead. If he hadn’t moved out of the way BEFORE SHOOTING HER, then he would have caused his own injury by shooting someone that had their foot on the accelerator, in the face.

He made so many moves and decisions in that split second that it almost makes you think he’d played this out in his head beforehand.

libertyforever Jan 9

You’re narrating this as if it happened in slow motion with perfect information. Real-life self-defense isn’t judged by whether someone picked the optimal move after the fact, but whether there was a reasonable fear of imminent harm at the moment force was used.

His job description does not include playing vigilante and pulling anyone in his way out of cars. He chose to pretend he was invincible and step in front of a car with no bearing on his orders; she had nothing to do with their sweep, he just decided he wanted to intimidate some middle aged soccer mom. Everything after that decision is blood on his hands.

There’s a reason no real LEO would put their hands on a car in gear, let alone voluntarily walk in front of it to prevent it from moving unless it’s a serious life-death situation. That shit will get you hurt, intentionally or not. She didn’t have a weapon, she wasn’t kidnapping anyone. If you think that middle aged woman needs to be caught and questioned you can always get her plate and follow up later.

Use your goddamn head before escalating a situation and you won’t need to worry about self defense.

libertyforever Jan 9

You’re arguing tactics and motives with the benefit of hindsight. The law doesn’t. A vehicle can be lethal force, and self-defense turns on perceived imminent threat in real time — not whether you think a different option might have been better afterward.

FrostyTheDoo Jan 9

Tell me which part of this DHS policy supports the actions of the officer in the video:

“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.”

libertyforever Jan 9

Policy B is the relevant clause. The vehicle can qualify as deadly force if it presents an imminent threat and avoidance isn’t reasonably perceived as possible in that moment. Policy violations ≠ murder.

There is no law for what they’re doing. That’s not a defense. Their job, ostensibly, is to remove “dangerous criminals who shouldn’t be here” and ensure safety in that neighborhood. What actually happened is they fucked around and murdered a woman who had literally nothing to do with their operation for no sane reason.

Like I know you’re just a rage bait account (no one could be this fucking stupid) but imagine if this was a normal police officer. These cops are here for, say, a drug bust and this car pulls into the street and tries to Y turn to get out. There is literally no reason to engage with the car, much less walk in front of it, much less shoot the fucking driver. Unless your goals are illegal use of force for political intimidation, that car should drive away 10/10 times.

It’s not a tactical question. It’s not about self defense. It’s murder. If a soldier in a fucking war zone did this it would still be a war crime. And we’re talking about broad daylight in Minneapolis after a mom drops off her kids at school.

libertyforever Jan 9

Bad tactics or unnecessary engagement don’t automatically void self-defense. The legal question is the officer’s reasonable perception at the moment force was used, not whether the encounter should have happened in hindsight.

They do. It’s pretty fucking obvious here. He wasn’t acting in accordance with any law. Hell, he probably doesn’t even have a badge on! In this engagement he’s just a guy with a vest, a gun and a mask.

If I were to glue “Police DHS” onto a vest, step in front of a car and execute the driver I would be in fucking jail. Assuming I wasn’t already killed by a panicked bystander. That is exactly what happened here.

We should be holding LEO (if you want to call these thugs that) to a higher standard than a civilian driving home from school. Period. Would you be defending these actions from an off duty police officer? Because that’s what he was in the most optimistic light: a guy with a gun and a mask.

Don’t answer, we already know you’re a groveling boot licker. I hope that pays off when they’re kicking in your door, shooting first and asking questions later.

libertyforever Jan 9

Calling this “execution” ignores how self-defense law actually works. Tactical mistakes or policy violations don’t automatically void the right to defend yourself when you reasonably perceive an imminent threat. Vehicles are lethal weapons, split-second decisions are messy, and hindsight doesn’t rewrite the legal standard. Insults, analogies, and outrage aren’t evidence — investigations determine what actually happened.

Bro doesn’t know how to read the fucking law. I spelled it out for you, should I use crayons next time?

🥾👅👅👅

libertyforever Jan 9

Mockery isn’t law. Self‑defense doesn’t disappear because you claim policy violations or narrate the video at 0.25× speed. The legal standard is still reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used — not your after‑action certainty or emojis. If this were as “spelled out” as you say, it wouldn’t require insults to carry the argument.

Read the fucking law if you’re such an armchair lawyer. You might find out your fucking fantasy defense is bullshit. I see evidence of a man taking a stupid belligerent action that got an innocent woman killed. You’re just covering your eyes and hoping the unfortunate truth goes away.

The legal standard is still reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used

IT’S VERY FUCKING CLEARLY NOT YOU STUPID NEANDERTHAL. LOOK IT UP. LOOK IT UP. LOOK IT UP. STOP PRETENDING THAT THE LAW FITS YOUR FANTASY NARRATIVE. LOOK IT UP.

Also what fucking 0.25 speed narration? There is plenty of time to consider your actions when you’re walking up to a car you have no business approaching and deliberately positioning yourself in a dangerous spot. If you’re such a scared and panicked super soldier with an itchy trigger finger you shouldn’t fucking be there. As a matter of fact, you’re probably too goddamn stupid to be holding a gun, whoever appointed you there and sent you out on the street is criminally negligent at best.

And my mockery isn’t the law, it’s what you deserve you shit eating boot licker 💩👅🥾👅👅

libertyforever Jan 9

I’m not engaging with screaming, slurs, or threats. The law is not a matter of how angry you are or how certain you feel after rewatching video. The standard is reasonable perception of imminent threat at the moment force was used — that’s settled law, not my invention. You can argue that the perception was unreasonable. That’s a legitimate position. What you can’t do is redefine the standard, declare intent as fact, and replace analysis with abuse.

What you can’t do is look up the actual law and find out you’re wrong you fucking coward. Go do it. Go ahead. Hell you don’t even have to do that much, just look up what lawyers and prosecuters are saying. Spoiler: everyone not wearing a Maga hat is coming to the same conclusion.

You also don’t have the moral fortitude to call a spade a spade: this ICE agent was unilaterally deployed for intimidation and that reckless order got an innocent woman killed. How many “deportations” is that worth? What rule of law is being upheld when citizens are being killed without justification by gunmen in the streets?

I’m using caps, insults and repetition as a communication method to get past your thin skinned denial of reality. Open your fucking eyes! This is absurd. I’m not going to have a calm and rational conversation about whether we should or should not be allowing innocent citizens to be gunned down in the street for the crime of startling a thug.

We’re long past debating theoretical idiotic tariffs, people are fucking dying. And you’re just having a great time deep throating that boat to the ankle. Thanks for the catharsis tho, I’m glad dipshits like you are here to play the idiot

libertyforever Jan 9

I’ve stated the law accurately: use of deadly force is judged by objective reasonableness at the moment it’s used. You can argue the agent’s perception was unreasonable, but shouting, insults, and claims that I’m inventing the law don’t change the standard

objective reasonableness at the moment

Ok I’ll bite since you’re too dumb/cowardly to look it up yourself. There are dozens of factors that weigh on a ruling.

Number of belligerents (e.g multiple people surrounding the car, noting driver and plate for later)
Availability of other options (e.g not getting in front of the car)
Rules on force from authority, declaration of intent and proof of authority (e.g where are badges???)
Behavior before and after the event (e.g boxing in the car, not allowing medical attention)
Proportional force and timing of force (e.g dumping 3+ shots into the car well after the threat is gone)
Behavior of victim before the event (e.g victim is on a routine drive home on a public road)

And on and on and on… But sure, keep chanting “moment it’s used” as if it’s a magic spell that grants your jack boots immunity. Go polish some soles you fucking fascist.

Self-Defense Laws in Minnesota: A Comprehensive Guide

Protect yourself legally: Discover self-defense laws and how they apply in Minnesota, with Attorney Thomas Gallagher.

Gallagher Criminal Defense

libertyforever Jan 10

You just proved my point. Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated. Minnesota self‑defense law — like federal use‑of‑force law — evaluates objective reasonableness at the moment force is used, informed by surrounding circumstances. Those “dozens of factors” you listed are inputs to the reasonableness analysis, not a replacement for it. Courts don’t ask whether an officer made every perfect tactical decision beforehand. They ask whether, at the moment shots were fired, a reasonable officer could perceive an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Prior conduct can inform that analysis; it does not magically erase it. You’re arguing application — whether the threat had passed, whether alternatives existed, whether positioning was reckless. That’s a legitimate debate. What you’re still not doing is disproving the legal standard itself. Screaming “fascist” and pretending the law says “any mistake voids self‑defense” may feel satisfying, but it isn’t what courts apply — in Minnesota or anywhere else.

Nothing in that link contradicts the standard I stated

YOU ARE A FUCKING NEANDERTHAL. DO YOU KNOW THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE?

NOTHING I LISTED HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH “MOMENT”.

THEY SPEAK HOLISTICALLY TO THE ENTIRE ENCOUNTER.

THE ONLY TENUOUS “THREAT” IS A FRACTION OF A SECOND OF A CAR IDLING IN DRIVE, WITH WHEELS CLEARLY ANGLED AWAY*

EVERY OTHER FACT POINTS TO AN ACT OF MURDER IN BROAD DAYLIGHT BY A JACKED UP THUG.

THESE ARE NOT FUCKING “TACTICS”. THESE ARE FACTS PROVING THE CRIME IN QUESTION.

THERE IS NO DEBATE NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU IMAGINE ONE.

IF YOU THINK THERE IS YOU ARE A FASCIST.

You don’t need to put on a fucking powdered wig and gavel to see that an innocent woman was executed with absurd force. Go suck some Nazi cock on a qanon forum, you’ll have a better time

*dude had a front row view of her turning the steering wheel btw

libertyforever Jan 10

You’re confusing scope of evidence with the legal decision point. Courts absolutely look at the entire encounter — but they do so to evaluate whether the officer’s perception was objectively reasonable at the moment deadly force was used. That’s not semantics, and it’s not optional. It’s how self-defense law works in Minnesota and federally. Declaring “there is no debate” and labeling disagreement as fascism doesn’t make it so. Courts don’t decide cases by caps lock, insults, or moral certainty — they decide them by applying that exact framework.

Faaaaaaaascist 🚨🚨🚨🥾👅👅👅

libertyforever Jan 10

You’ve moved from legal disagreement to moral absolutism, and those are not the same thing. You’re free to believe the shooting was immoral, unjustified, or even that the agent should be fired or prosecuted. What you don’t get to do is declare that the legal framework for self-defense doesn’t exist, or that disagreement itself is proof of fascism. Whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. That’s not “pedantry,” it’s how criminal liability is defined in a society governed by law rather than mob certainty. Courts don’t just decide punishment — they decide whether conduct meets the elements of a crime. You’ve made your moral judgment. I’ve explained the legal standard. We’re not debating evidence anymore — you’re demanding ideological agreement.

Tanis Nikana Jan 10

FUCK OFF YOU FASCIST PRICK, NOBODY LOVES YOU

libertyforever Jan 10

You’re arguing from anger, not evidence.

🔔🔔🔔Faaaaaascist

Ding dong numbnuts, guess what? The law is the written reflection of society’s moral code. Some things are so fundamental to that code that seeing hard evidence of the crime being committed becomes tautological and nothing more needs to be said.

There is no law saying that any individual, or even a mob, can’t call a murder a murder. That is by design, the USA preserves our constitutional right to free speech. We’re only restricted from enacting a punishment (that right is ceded by the mob to our government). Knowing that, there are two options here:

You deny it was a murder. You think that an ice agent has the authority to be judge, jury, and executioner on any street in America. Ergo, you discard 250 years of American ideological history; America’s founding principles explicitly opposed to unilateral imposition of despotic violence. Ergo you are an enemy of America and a fascist.

You’re scared to call it a murder, even on anonymous platforms hosted outside the US. By refusing to speak out on such a low level, basic incident you are granting tacit legitimacy to that unconstitutional action; willing to cover your eyes without complaint while America succumbs to its ideological antithesis. Ergo you are betraying the constitution by your inaction, making you an enemy and a fascist

I’m demanding a basic stand that is to be expected of any human in 2025 (aside from the cowards conditioned to put their heads in the sand). It’s not even that hard. There is concrete evidence of a murder right in front of your eyes, just call it a murder.

And even beyond the lofty heights of justice you’re just making yourself look like a fucking idiot

You: watches someone commit murder from 5 different angles

…

You: uhh acktually whether someone committed a crime is determined by applying law to facts. I’m gonna be a coward and hide behind papa Trump’s courts

libertyforever Jan 10

Moral certainty is not a legal argument. Declaring “it’s obviously murder” is a conclusion, not evidence. Due process exists precisely to prevent people from substituting outrage for analysis. Disagreement isn’t fascism — it’s how law works.

Lmfao you’re such a joker. Just out here making yourself look like an idiot, blatantly denying reality, a perfect picture of cognitive dissonance. When they break into your house and shoot a loved one on a flimsy “self-defense” justification I hope you’re still preaching “legal argument”. 🥾👅👅👅

If

jordanlund Jan 10

Self-defense doesn’t exist when the position you are defending yourself from is one of your own creation.

There is no self-defense argument here.

You can’t cause an instigation, assault or kill someone, then claim self-defense. That’s not the way self-defense works.

libertyforever Jan 10

He originally wasn’t directly in front of the car. It was the car’s reverse motion that put him directly in front of the car. Thus, he didn’t create danger himself.

jordanlund Jan 10

He did when he engaged the vehicle instead of allowing them to leave the scene when ordered.