Anonymous #1 5w

People are definitely choosing to ignore it then 🤷🏼‍♂️

69

Anonymous #3 5w

and yet they still use deadly force at the drop of a pin

47

Anonymous #4 5w

I know but nothing in this world is perfect. Of course incidents will happen

-3

Anonymous #3 5w

And honestly, the fact there is less incidents then non-incidents then that is what we can strive for. Nothing is perfect but we can always strive for better

0

Anonymous #3 5w

Yeah when they don’t actively put their own lives in danger

5

Anonymous #3 5w

no matter how little, our federal government shouldn’t be covering up or making excuses for these incidents. calling the victim a domestic terrorist is disgusting behavior

7

Anonymous #3 5w

If an airline said “well we know plane crashes shouldnt happen but if it happens sometimes its really not that big a deal” would you trust that airline?

6

Anonymous #8 4w

Oh… you’re slow. It’s okay, bud, I too post alt-right memes when I can’t come up with a substantive argument.

40

Anonymous #8 4w

Idk the first person and I think charlie kirk’s death was a stupid unnecessary decision. Trump is not a citizen. They can all die up there i don’t give a fuck. I care about normal people like me and Nicole and frankly even Kirk. Your generalizations aren’t helping anyone but your own negative emotions

18

Anonymous #10 4w

“Party of peace” people when they don’t like someone

4

Anonymous #11 4w

dawg you might as well have said uno reverse, you liked their “you’re slow” argument so much you had to use it yourself

20

Anonymous #11 4w

I don’t like corrupt people in positions of power. You don’t like people on the same playing field as you who don’t like corrupt people in positions of power

4

Anonymous #10 4w

I don’t not like anybody I’m just saying

1

Anonymous #11 4w

just trying to rile up the masses? why should anyone listen to you

2

Anonymous #10 4w

Bro what are you talking about I’m just pointing out the facts. You said you wouldn’t care if trump died but advocate for peace.

7

Anonymous #11 4w

Because he is using his power to disrupt the peace. He’s hurting many many people and I do not stand for that. Your original argument was making an assumption that the poster isn’t angry by all of it. I’m speaking from my end on behalf of the poster that if i were that stupid wojak i’d be angry at everything besides trump because he is very directly causing harm to people

3

Anonymous #11 4w

It all pisses me off. People are dying because there’s someone at the seat of our country essentially playing God. No one should have that power, or at the very least abuse it in the way that he has been

4

Anonymous #10 4w

Would it not be more appropriate for trump to stand trial for his misdeeds than just killing him? Simply killing him would make you no better than the ice agent in Minneapolis.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Yes 100%, but again, he’s using his power to make that impossible. If it were possible it would have happened by now

4

Anonymous #10 4w

So the only answer left is to kill him?

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Can you think of any alternatives besides him changing his mind?

6

Anonymous #11 4w

He wouldn’t be missed by me

0

Anonymous #10 4w

Just let the judicial process run its course. Since he was inaugurated, ice has shot 9 people under Trump’s presidency and only four have died. This number is quite small compared the number of homicides committed by illegal immigrants in 2024 under Biden’s presidency. If death must happen, it’s better for it to happen to less people. It’s like the classic example with people tied to the railroad tracks and the lever. There’s no correct answer, but one answer results in less people dying.

6

Anonymous #11 4w

if it’s better for it to happen to less people then why not just make it one person

1

Anonymous #6 4w

Well honestly that’s quite sad that you would wish death upon another person. I’m republican, but I would never wish death upon democrats.

3

Anonymous #10 4w

Because it’s not as two dimensional as that hypothetical. Killing the president of one of the most powerful bastions in the planet would have severe global consequences.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

additionally, there are a LOT more immigrants than ice agents. it’s like how people would say 1 in every 23 people is a serial killer. If there are just 23 people, that means one serial killer. If there are 23 million people, that’s a million serial killers

4

Anonymous #10 4w

There should be more ice agents than illegal immigrants. Could you imagine if there were more criminals than cops?

1

Anonymous #11 4w

If you aren’t considering proportions then why not throw in murders committed by non-immigrants?

1

Anonymous #11 4w

But you would for immigrants and the people of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Pakistan, and Palestine

1

Anonymous #11 4w

then that would mean more deaths which directly contradicts what you said

1

Anonymous #10 4w

Because it’s irrelevant to my argument

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Then it’s a cherry-picking fallacy and a false dichotomy. Show me evidence of proportional statistical significance and maybe I’ll be more appealed to your argument

1

Anonymous #11 4w

So killing trump is different because he’s in the government and not an everyday citizen like yourself

1

Anonymous #10 4w

There’s plenty of statistical evidence online if you’d line you find it be my guest

1

Anonymous #6 4w

There would be more ripples in global society than if an average Joe were killed, yes. Not saying his life is more valuable than others but he does hold a very important position.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

How about this National Institute of Justice document under the House.gov address, titled “Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower than US-Born Citizen Rate”

4

Anonymous #10 4w

Okay so US born citizens commit more crimes than illegal immigrants do. Ice agents still have killed less people than illegal immigrants. My point still stands.

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Because there are less of them! You aren’t considering proportions, you’re considering raw data. That is not how critical analysis works

1

Anonymous #11 4w

The ICE website states that there are around 7100 ICE agents deployed in 220 cities throughout the US AND 80 overseas locations, so some of which aren’t even in the United States making the population even lower. There were 14 million illegal immigrants occupying the US in 2023, according to the Pew Research Center, likely lower than the actual population considering their lack of documentation. I don’t need to do the math to prove how that’s completely incomparable

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Kinda like kidnapping a president and killing over 100 civilians in the process

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Circling back to what we were initially discussing, the judicial process isn’t doing anything to Trump for one reason or another even though he has without a doubt put himself above the law. Whatever that reason, there is a high likelihood it has to to with the Trump administration abusing power, which just leads me back to my original argument

1

Anonymous #11 4w

What global consequences would there be if Trump was killed by someone from the US?

1

Anonymous #11 4w

Also, you argued Trump should face trial instead of what I suggested. Why not regard immigrants with the same respect?

4

Anonymous #11 4w

Man y’all love saying that but whoever said the democrats were “the party of peace” also no everyone who hates trump is a liberal btw

1

Anonymous #2 4w

Ignoring and forgetting are very different

1

Anonymous #12 4w

obstructing the law is illegal, but crime is for the courts to adjudicate. it doesn’t authorize or justify summary execution. that distinction is the entire point of due process. if lethal force is unavoidable, people would be talking about self-defense. instead, i see a lot of rhetoric about “deserved death,” which is a justification for punishment without trial, fundamentally undermining the judicial process

0

Anonymous OP 4w

I don’t think she deserved death. But I do think she was wrong for fleeing and the officer who was in front of the vehicle had every right to use his weapon

5

Anonymous #12 4w

the legal test for deadly force requires objective imminence and necessity. based on available information, i don’t see that threshold being met. more broadly, defending extrajudicial killings undermines the separation of powers and due process. if administrative doctrines or fabricated immunities are being used (they are) to shield such killings from independent review, it creates a dangerous, legally corrosive, and profoundly ominous precedent.

1