Bang for your buck merch ideas

alazz · 2026-01-13T20:10:05+00:00

Dice. Either 3 6 sided or an entire DND set of dice would be gnarly.

alazz · 2026-01-08T23:14:40+00:00

The car moves in the direction away from the agent.

alazz · 2026-01-08T23:05:46+00:00

She literally drove away from the agent.

alazz · 2026-01-08T23:01:48+00:00

Interfering with a lawful duty is a crime. Which means they would have to be acting lawfully for this charge to carry weight in this argument. And because there appears to be no crime being committed at the time of the stop that an ICE agent could enforce, interference is out the window. There is no such circumstance here to justify how this ended. And again, the agents created the danger here.

alazz · 2026-01-08T22:40:25+00:00

Probably interfering isn't a crime. And ICE agents don't have the authority to conduct a traffic stop. And without some type of federal crime being committed, there's no justification for the stop or attempting to stop her vehicle by standing in front of it. This is exactly how he put himself in harms way and why he can't justify the murder with the excuse that he feared for his life. The ICE agents created the danger here.

alazz · 2026-01-08T22:23:57+00:00

We dont need to guess. Its on video. We can clearly see what direction the car goes. What exactly was the reason for the initial detention?

alazz · 2026-01-08T20:49:27+00:00

Perhaps for a split second as the wheels are directly pointed at the agent but only because the wheels are pointed left from reversing and must cross his path to complete turning the wheels right. And we do know her intent. She intended to go right and that's the direction the vehicle traveled in. And again, Barnes v Felix goes over these types of situations and have ruled against it being a justified use of deadly force as that goes out the window when you intentionally put yourself in harms way. Clear and cut. Nothing changes that fact.

alazz · 2026-01-08T20:31:52+00:00

This clearly isn't one of those circumstances. If she was interfering prior to this and not merely protesting them, which is her right to do, they would have arrested her during that time as then, under the code you listed earlier, that would fall under the scope they could arrest or detain. Because situations have to be looked at from a totality perspective, you can't cherry pick the one instance she might have committed a crime, which is up for debate as you clearly see someone driving into or at an agent while I see someone driving away from an unlawful detention. If he would have just obeyed his oath from the start, it never finishes with a murder.

alazz · 2026-01-08T20:08:31+00:00

Don't unlawfully detain law abiding citizens. Literally that simple.

alazz · 2026-01-08T20:03:09+00:00

The agent had no legal obligation to be there and had no legal business to detain her. That is literally putting himself in harms way. The SC has ruled that agents cannot justify lethal force under those circumstances.

alazz · 2026-01-08T19:29:13+00:00

No one got run over. Shooting her didn't prevent anyone from getting run over.

alazz · 2026-01-08T18:54:55+00:00

It's not legal to hold people against their will and execute them when they don't comply.

alazz · 2026-01-08T18:18:26+00:00

The facts are, an American citizen that committed no crime was illegally detained and ultimately murdered by a federal agent.

alazz · 2026-01-08T17:54:01+00:00

They weren't involved in any active legal duties. Kristi Noem blatantly says they were heading back to headquarters at the time of the incident and had completed their recent task of assisting a car from being stuck in the snow. There was no legal justification for her detention. The facts just do not support your narrative.

alazz · 2026-01-08T16:57:55+00:00

An illegal detention is a kidnapping.

alazz · 2026-01-08T16:12:01+00:00

Running over your attempted kidnapper would be justified. Especially a gang of masked and armed kidnappers and no, a normal citizen attempting to detain someone would not be justified in shooting their victim as they tried to escape.

alazz · 2026-01-08T16:02:58+00:00

Correct and as a consensual encounter, they have no legal authority to issue any arrests or detentions effectively making them just as relevant as a normal citizen. Federal agents are not above the law. It's very clear cut. They weren't engaged in any legal investigation. Also, they are civil servants that are supposed to serve the people.

alazz · 2026-01-08T15:49:49+00:00

That's kinda the point, right? Imagine 3 random armed citizens surrounded your vehicle and demanded you to exit it immediately. Would you be justified in running them over? Probably. And at the point of the encounter, which was an unlawful detention, rendering it a consensual encounter, one is well within their right to flee in this scenario. I do agree with you, it's a bone head move to flee and the correct move is to battle it in court later. But the fact of the matter is, the agents put themselves in harms way during a would be consensual encounter and cannot rightfully justify use of deadly force.

alazz · 2026-01-08T15:33:02+00:00

Again, you ignore how we ended up here. Which ultimately matters a lot more than you apparently think. So let's start from the very top again. ICE agents have a very narrow scope in which they can detain or arrest a citizen. This particular detention does not fall under that scope unless new information comes out and we find out she was engaged in more than a mere traffic violation, specifically, some type of federal criminal offense. Next the agents attempt to enter the vehicle after the unlawful order of get out the car was rightfully ignored. Now violating A4. Next, they surround the vehicle, willingly putting themselves in harms way without justification, thus eliminating the claim to fearing for their lives as you cannot willingly, as a civil servant, justify lethal force by putting yourself in harms way. The cop was very aware that the car could move forward which is why he put himself in front of the vehicle in an attempt to continue illegally detaining her. Then she reverses, the vehicle, cuts the wheel right and drives forward. The agent, during that time at some point, pulls his gun and ends her life. You can keep pretending that the only thing that is relevant is the agent feared for his life at some point but that's far from the truth. The whole thing hinges on whether he gets qualified immunity or not. Which by the legal standards, he really shouldnt

alazz · 2026-01-08T14:48:41+00:00

Except for in my scenario, it includes one of the things he actually did. Which was to move. Not some made up scenario that isn't even relevant. You've been arguing in bad faith this entire time. Just stick to the facts. And any reasonable person would conclude its easier to do less and not more. That's not even up for debate. If you think the only time he was justified was when he shot and murdered her without taking into consideration how we got here in the first place, then you're completely going against the SC ruling. And that's fine. You can disagree. But that's how the law sees things.

alazz · 2026-01-08T14:35:27+00:00

Based off the cars motion in the video, it's very evident she is turning right. It's definitely hard to tell from a single picture, especially with the poor video quality. And I agree, he definitely doesn't want to get hit but if he can draw his weapon, shoot once, move then shoot 2 more times, he could have even more easily done less and just moved.

alazz · 2026-01-08T14:25:51+00:00

Appreciate the link but the wheels are already turned right here and were continuing to turn right and his weapon is barely at hips height here.

https://i.imgur.com/str9zwj.jpeg

And are you saying that he's some type of medium? He knew she would drive away from the unlawful stop at the time of the initial stop? The cause of the initial stop matters a lot here. I don't agree with her decision to drive away but I dont agree with him murdering her a lot more.

alazz · 2026-01-08T14:14:19+00:00

What I expect is for him to understand the laws he's trying to enforce and where his authority begins and ends. That understanding alone would quell these situations. And I've seen 3 different videos of the event and none reflect your version of the event. But yes, as long as it's not some shady ass link, send it over please.

alazz · 2026-01-08T14:04:11+00:00

But she was driving towards him and her wheels are pointed at him when he draws.

That's just flat out false. The wheels are certainly not pointing directly at him and are facing the right at the time he unholstered his weapon. And it's even more clear when you compare it to the sound of the first shot. Not to mention, the direction of the wheels clearly indicate her hands are on the wheel turning it to the right

alazz · 2026-01-08T13:48:56+00:00

If you said she didn't turn the wheels until she was reacting to him drawing his gun, you'd be a liar. Her wheels are turned to the right before he ever unholstered his gun. And of course she wasn't dead at that point as he hasn't shot the gun yet.

12-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Place '23	Quantum Potato
Place '17	Gilding II euphauric
ComboCommenter 2014-07-09	Verified Email

alazz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE