libertyforever

Using threats and insults doesn’t make your argument stronger — it just confirms you’ve abandoned reason. Disagreement over law or evidence does not make someone a fascist, and personal attacks are not a substitute for debate.

The ICE agent wasn’t directly in front of the SUV at first. When the driver began to reverse, that motion put him directly in front of the SUV, and then when she shifted into drive and moved forward, that forward motion cause the car to hit him. As such, he didn't create the danger. The driver did.

All the shots happened within split seconds, and courts do not judge self-defense in slow motion or frame by frame — they consider what a reasonable officer perceived at that exact moment. Video shows the ICE agent was directly in front of the SUV as it moved forward, with tires losing traction and engine/tire noise, making it reasonable for him to fear imminent harm. The law definitely doesn’t ignore perception — self-defense is judged on what a reasonable officer perceived in that split second, not on perfect hindsight.

The SUV’s motion, tire noise, and engine revving would understandably make an officer feel an imminent threat in a matter of seconds. Also, based on videos from different angles, the car did very likely indeed hit the ICE agent. Courts and use-of-force law judge self-defense on what a reasonable officer perceived at that split second, not hindsight, and self-defense very very likely stand based on the circumstances.

Your previous comment was removed by the moderator because it was completely inappropriate.

That statement is an explicit threat of violence. Disagreeing with you does not make someone a Nazi or justify harm

You’ve now explicitly stated an intent to kill people you label as ‘Nazis.’ That is a direct threat of violence and criminal intimidation, not speech or debate. Disagreement does not make someone a fascist

This is no longer debate or political speech. You’ve made explicit threats of violence and advocated killing people you label as ‘Nazis.’ That is harassment and criminal intimidation, not constitutional defense. Disagreeing about law or evidence does not make someone a fascist, and threats don’t become justified because you invoke ideology.

You are making explicit threats and advocating violence to silence disagreement. That is harassment and intimidation, not ‘law’ or morality. Disagreeing with you does not make someone a terrorist, an accomplice, or anything else you’re inventing.

That’s an explicit threat and doxxing intimidation, not an argument. Disagreeing about evidence or law does not make someone an ‘accomplice.'

Telling someone they’ll face ‘real-world consequences’ for disagreeing with you is a threat, no matter how you dress it up. Disagreement over evidence or law does not make someone an accomplice to murder. That kind of rhetoric abandons reason entirely and replaces it with intimidation.

Name-calling and threats don’t turn disagreement into ‘lying.’ And implying real-world violence over an argument just proves you’ve abandoned evidence and law entirely.