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:
-
Purpose is for protest organizing. [Country, City, State]
-
Absolutely no calls for violent action.
-
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?
This analogy only works if you assume the conclusion first — that ICE is equivalent to the Gestapo and therefore any force used against them is justified. That’s rhetoric, not analysis. The actual legal question is whether there was an imminent threat at the moment force was used. Nazi analogies don’t answer that, and they don’t substitute for evidence or self-defense law.
Are you stupid? No it doesn’t?
There is no mention of use of force being justified. Do you even know how to read, or are you just copy-pasting talking points from an AI?
Nazi analogies aren’t evidence. Self-defense is judged on imminent threat and reasonableness, not rhetoric or insults.
So are you planning on engaging with the point or do you plan to continue to ignore things you can’t refute?
I am engaging — by rejecting rhetoric and focusing on the legal standard. If you think the threat wasn’t imminent or reasonable, make that case directly.
Here, since you seem to have trouble reading:
The analogy doesn’t address the legal standard. What does matter under DHS policy and legal analysis is whether the officer reasonably perceived an imminent threat at the moment shots were fired — not whether a hashtag slogan or metaphor mentions “justification.”
Okay, but that’s not what was being discussed.
You said this, and I challenged this claim. You have failed to refute this challenge, and still are.
The analogy does not need to presuppose that assertion to work.
Maybe if you were literate and not using an AI to talk for you? Maybe then you could adequately respond.
The analogy doesn’t actually address the legal standard that matters here. The question in this case isn’t whether ICE is like some historical regime — it’s whether the agent’s use of deadly force met the objectively reasonable imminent‑threat standard under federal and state law.
yes, yes they are
If we’re going to debate this seriously, let’s focus on specific policies and actions, not just emotional labels.”
spoken like a true politician. have a look at history - something we’re taught a lot of in Europe, especially WWII - and ask yourself in what ways ICE isn’t going down the Gestapo route. ironic to be about “liberty” when civilians get stripped of their rights for just existing and killed for expressing their opinions
remember your views when the US eventually turns into a totalitarian state and starts arresting your loved ones because they have opposing views
Invoking the Gestapo isn’t analysis — it’s a rhetorical shortcut. The Gestapo operated in a one-party dictatorship, without courts, warrants, due process, or constitutional limits, and carried out mass torture and extermination. ICE operates under statutory authority, judicial review, warrants, and is regularly challenged — and constrained — in U.S. courts. You can oppose immigration enforcement, criticize tactics, or argue for different laws without collapsing everything into “WWII = therefore Gestapo.” That analogy strips real historical atrocities of meaning and shuts down serious debate. And no — people aren’t being “killed for expressing opinions.” That kind of framing ignores facts and replaces them with fear narratives. If you think specific rights were violated in this case, name them and point to evidence. Otherwise this is speculation, not history. Liberty isn’t protected by declaring every institution you dislike to be Nazi-adjacent. It’s protected by applying law, evidence, and proportionality consistently — even when you don’t like the agency involved.
that’s a lot of words for not wanting to see or admit that change is a gradual process. ofcourse trumpywumpy won’t immediately and aggressively install such kind of police - the backlash would be too immense and he’s not THAT stupid (one might think). it starts small and gradually evolves to something worse. from detaining people who are known to not have papers, to detaining and questioning everyone that has a different kind of skin color, to just randomly search houses or raid workplaces, to monitoring phones and communications … and thus it grows into more gestapo-like territory.
Warning about gradual authoritarianism isn’t proof it’s happening. If you think lines are being crossed now, cite facts — otherwise it’s just a slippery slope argument replacing evidence.
all the things I’ve mentioned are already happening. but it’s no concern to me, because I’m lucky to live in a free democracy that’s not being ruled by a wannabe authoritarian. good luck in die Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika and don’t forget to add some salt and pepper to the boots you’re licking. what’s liberty if not blindly following all the rules without question, right?
Calling normal enforcement “authoritarian” and adding insults doesn’t make a legal argument. Facts and evidence still matter.
Lick the boot harder. I don’t think they can see their faces in them quite yet.
Ah yes, the classic substitute for an argument.
It wasn’t supposed to be an argument. It was supposed to be an insult.
If the taste of boot wax gets to be too overpowering, I hear buckshot makes a good mouthwash.
When a discussion turns into insults, it’s because your argument failed.
“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?
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.