Collective guilt and rage dumps aren’t legal arguments. You’re listing unrelated tragedies to justify condemning this specific incident without applying the actual legal standard. Self-defense law doesn’t change based on your opinion of police, ICE, or statistics — it asks whether, in that moment, a reasonable officer perceived an imminent threat. You don’t get to replace evidence and law with slogans, insults, or ‘all cops are the same’ logic. And no — anger at institutions doesn’t justify violence against agents or rewriting legal standards after the fact. Accountability comes through investigations and courts, not mobs or moral absolutism.
The ICE agent was hit by the car. Have you checked all the videos at different angles?
She didn't want to leave until all of a sudden she took off with the SUV and hit the ICE agent.
The article of impeachment failed miserably. So many Democrats voted Nay. It was a complete waste of everyone's time. Why can't the Democrats find something more productive to do?
The article of impeachment failed miserably. So many Democrats voted Nay. It was a complete waste of time.
I didn't search your user history. If your position is all the recent presidents are bad, then that is fine. I don't have an issue with that.
The wars that Trump is working to end, and on which he has made significant progress within less than one month of his inauguration, are the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war.
The relative poverty rate and GDP growth compared to other developed countries show otherwise.
Way too early to anoint a successor.
I agree with you. People should see Trump's approval rating. He is doing well so far.
view more: next ›
libertyforever
0 post score0 comment score
joined 1 year ago
Threatening people and their families is exactly where any moral argument collapses. Disagreeing about law or policy doesn’t justify intimidation or violence. You’re no longer arguing morality — you’re proving why we need law to restrain mob logic and personal threats.