“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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

🥾👅👅👅

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 💩👅🥾👅👅

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

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.

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

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 🚨🚨🚨🥾👅👅👅

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.

🔔🔔🔔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

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

Threats, insults, and hyperbolic hypotheticals don’t change the legal framework. The law exists so that we don’t decide guilt based on anger or outrage, even in tragic or morally upsetting situations. Equating measured legal analysis with being “fascist” or a “cuck” is itself an ideological attack, not an argument. If you want to actually debate legality, focus on evidence and elements of the law, not moral posturing or ad hominem attacks.

FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASH

Even on an obvious rage bait account like this, saying that dumb shit makes you a fascist cuck. There’s no debate here, just one fascist clown doing tricks for our entertainment 🤡👅👅👅👅💩👅👅👅

Resorting to screaming, insults, and performative name-calling doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms there’s no actual engagement with the legal points. I’m not here to win an insult contest; I’m discussing the law and evidence. If you want to have a meaningful conversation about legality, we can stick to facts, legal standards, and reasoning — otherwise this just becomes a circus of ad hominem attacks, which isn’t a debate.

Lololol I replied to all of your points and you gave no response. You’re like a broken record when you get backed into a corner “L L L Legal… Legality… Court… Ev ev evidence… S s self defense… Ad ad… ad hominem 😢”. You’re like a tanky defaulting to “read more theory” because you have no fucking response.

Long plodding replies don’t change the fact that your a cowardly fascist boot licker who can’t answer a simple question: We have a synced video compiled from half a dozen angles (including his own fucking perspective) over the full encounter. Is that…

• A. A rational law abiding officer making reasonable decisions for his own safety
• B. A man cursing at a woman, lining himself up in front of her moving car, and shooting her 3 times in the head because this tough manly man couldn’t handle a middle aged woman making passive aggressive remarks while she coached exactly what he should have done ("Take my liscense plate! It will be the same tomorrow")

“I’ll wait for the courts to tell me how to use by brain” is not an answer. Go watch that woman get shot 100 more times if you’re not sure. If your answer in the face of that overwhelming evidence is anything but B, you’re a fascist who’s just as bad as the goon pulling the trigger.

Now give an answer

Legal self-defense isn’t about hindsight or perfection — it’s about whether a reasonable officer in that split second perceived an imminent threat, which the footage supports. That’s why courts don’t require flawless decisions, only reasonable ones under the circumstances.

BZZZZT Wrong answer. Please review my comment about the purpose of law, the court system and social contracts.

I didn’t ask you what the court would say. I didn’t ask about hindsight. I asked what you saw in that video. You refuse to answer. Why would that be?

You don’t get to plead the 5th here, you’re not on trial. Why can’t you tell me? Are you struggling to resolve the basic facts of the video with your dear leader’s marching orders? Trumps administration had no problem delivering their self defense verdict a handful of hours after the shooting, before they even had access to half of this evidence. Surely you can support your stance easily?

I saw a reasonably rational law abiding officer making reasonably rational decisions for his own safety while performing the task he was sent out to do.

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