I agree that race relations have been exacerbated by a number of recent events, including the case you mentioned, however, that statement is not mutually exclusive with the statement I made. It is a point that I largely addressed in the post that you quoted when I acknowledged that Trump is far from the only factor.

As for your statements about the left, they are so vague that I cannot adequately address anything other than your statement regarding the "democrats defending MS-13". I can only assume you are speaking about the incident where someone criticized Trump for saying that they are not humans and that they are animals. I don't really think that counts as much of a defense, and reading it as such is fairly hyperbolic.

Dehumanization is a very dangerous road to walk because it is a means of excusing the violation of human rights. Contrary to the beliefs of some individuals, even criminals have rights. This is kind of a fundamental part of our country. We guarantee certain rights to people, even after they have committed crimes, and that is not something that we should get away from. To make dehumanizing statements, even about criminals, is a means of convincing people that these individuals are not deserving of human rights, and I see nothing irrational about criticizing Trump for making statements such as this.

And that is before getting into how Trump utilizes MS-13 to attack immigrants. He constantly injects them into debates of immigration and uses this rhetoric as a means of conflating the groups. He attempts to utilize a tiny minority of individuals to attack a whole group. He uses MS-13 to justify violations of human rights such as his recent family separations policy. Trump's Justice Department has put out figures regarding MS-13 stating that there are about 10,000 members in the US. Even if we were to assume that every single one of these is an illegal immigrant (which is a fairly ridiculous assumption), that makes up 0.09% of Illegal Immigrants.

Choosing to interpret this situation as simply as "Democrats are defending MS-13" is incredibly reductive and poorly reflects reality.

As for your Gen Ed Economics class, the economic argument surrounding Illegal Immigration is actually fairly complicated. There are quite a few ways in which illegal immigration has a positive economic impact, and some argue that overall, the economic impact of illegal immigration is positive. At the least, the economic argument against illegal immigration is incredibly overblown.

I'm not arguing this about legal citizens, but even then I have a contrary. Police have the ability  to shoot a credible threat. Where is their fair trial? Trick question, they don't get one because they don't deserve one. If I walk up to someone with a gun and feel I have the right to take their life, I then acknowledge that life isn't a certainty and I lose my right to live at that point. MS-13, many of which are likely here illegally considering it's a Latin America gain and their actions show they don't give two fucks about basic decency and laws, have gone as far as to cut the heart out of a living person and beat pregnant women with bats. At what point to their actions result in their life? I'm not saying execute everyone, but if someone is here illegally and desires to wreck havoc, at what point is enough enough? 

And if you want to say Democrats didn't defend them, then at best they sounded like they have no clue what they are talking about, which IMO is worse.

https://townhall.com/columnists/deroymurdock/2018/05/30/dems-diss-metoo-defend-ms13-n2485667

She is not going to jail for life. You guys are silly. Don't assume you have the facts either. Maybe he spit in her face and she lost her mind. I doubt she will serve that much time at all.

This argument seems to largely be non-sequitur. Self-defense has virtually nothing to do with the question of dehumanization, and even if it did, self-defense is not, as you say a statement that someone does not deserve a fair trial, it is allowing individuals to guarantee their own human rights by protecting themselves. It is fundamentally a concept designed to protect human rights, not violate them. This is evident by the fact that a direct and credible threat must exist. You are not simply allowed to go up to someone who has murdered someone in the past. The argument that they lost their human rights when they take a life will certainly not help you in a court of law.

And you ask at what point do someone's actions justify dehumanizing that individual? Never. There is never a point where dehumanization is valid. Even individuals on death row must be treated humanely, even through their execution.

Your link adds nothing to the conversation because it is the exact statement I have been addressing (plus Townhall is a terrible place to get news).

And again, the utilization of MS-13 by Trump is a means to vilify immigrants and illegal immigrants, to allow for larger scale human rights abuses.

She's been arrested for attempted murder... Might want to do some reading.

Basically this boils down to moral principle. I'm a strong believer in an eye for an eye and the Golden Rule, so I tend to view extreme situations from my perspective. I would expect to be shot by police if I considered doing so because if I am okay with taking away the life of another, then I must be okay with someone taking my life as well. An example who give into death is ISIS. They are perfectly fine dying for their cause as long as someone comes with them. This mentality of accepting lawlessness is how these groups are made, so I don't think it is a bad thing to call them out and treat them like normal people, considering the actions they perform say otherwise.

This sort of thinking are how laws develop in the first place. Will it work in a courtroom? Fuck no, and I'm not saying it will. Laws are conceived on the basis that what we do may be too far given if the inverse happens to us. If you steal, something bad happens to you. Why? Because odds are if someone stole from you you'd want something bad to happen to him/her. I live in a state where the death penalty is still intact, so it influences the sort of terms I use.

Also I want to ask on your perspective of dehumanization, because I see it on both sides. The right calls people snowflakes and act like their in general are worth less while Democrats use the terms racists and Nazis to shut down any sort of conversation through means of intimidation and name calling. I think MS-13 is a vile group of individuals, and I wont comment on their rights considering I don't know their position of citizenship in a majority of cases, but what would you tend to classify as going too far? Answer for both too please, not just Trump and the right. 

I get how Trump's statements are dehumanizing, but what humans do you know that cut out hearts of living people? In Trump's case I feel it was an instance of making your enemy known, and lowering their pedestal so more and more people disapprove of them and their actions. Do I agree with it? Yes, but not to the extent of calling them animals. Is it lazy? Yes (same with my source picking, I knew there were better sources but I just clicked on what I saw and glossed through it for accurate content given the context of the situation). Was he talking about illegals in general? Hell no, his basic comments with the Fresno Sheriff prove this to be false.

You sound insane.  You have played judge, jury and executioner without even stopping to think about what you are saying.  Where in the world do people go to jail for life for attempted murder?  Just apply rational thinking and if that forces you to step outside of yourself for a few seconds do it.  I promise you will feel better. 

TYT says a lot of retarded agenda-driven stuff, I used to watch them mostly because they support several viewpoints of mine. I had to stop because I can't take how random their positions are, and how they employ a lot of pseudo-intellectual tactics. They're basically a problematic news source that happens to support democratic-leftism, egalitarianism, and environmentalism*; all things I support. I star environmentalism because they really don't give a damn about it, the only time they support it is when it supports their other other agendas.

BUT they also support discrimination against religion and specifically target Christianity. They had openly said (Steve Oh, I think his name is, was the center of this conversation) they wished all Christians were fanatical with terrible worldviews so they could feel better about blanket hating the religion. I am against all forms of cultural discrimination - attack ideas, not the culture as a whole or the people who belong to it - most Christians do not believe the stuff TYT accuses them of, but they give the whole religion the blame for it - and yet, have the audacity to criticize other news sources for doing the same about Islamic people. Disgusting and hypocritical.

They also strongly promote populism, which I am vehemently against. It is already a gigantic problem in the US, and the issue is that there's no proper knowledge into the policy or politicians that populism pushes in; some may be good some may be bad. In other words, while populism can be used to support great politicians or policy, it is more likely to push in incompetent politicians and horrible ideas; it opens the doors for demagoguery, nativism, and the destruction of protections and individual rights of people, sometimes to deadly effect. Democracy should be about voting in the best people for the job; it should be about the intellectual conflict of ideas supported by intellectual politicians voted in for the people, and by the people. Populism is easy, but democracy only thrives when it is done the hard way.

If you don't find Cenk and Ana bad enough, TYT hires bumbling jackasses like Jimmy Dore and Dave Rubin.

They also have really incoherent views on politics, they claim to be liberal, but are very anti-liberal in many ways - it's as dumb as when a republican says "I'm socially liberal but economically conservative" when the reality is they're economically liberal and socially conservative. I was convinced for a good long while that all Americans just don't know politics, left or right... but especially the right; a guy accused me of being a "libtard" once, which is a combination of liberal and retarded, when I agreed with a socialist (who had just posted a ANTI-liberal economic policy); then I pushed him on it, and he went on an incoherent tirade of racist, homophobic, and extreme economically liberal viewpoints. I assumed that the US might be a place devoid of much education on politics, despite almost every American presenting themselves as some great expert on politics while having only the vaguest education on them (it's like a guy passionately promoting Lamarkian evolution in support of Darwinism).
That said, I am of course wrong (and should feel bad), I have come across a few that actually have a solid grasp of the subject:  The Majority Report is the best American political channel I have found anywhere: https://www.youtube.com/user/SamSeder/featured

Better insane than stupid.

She was arrested and charged with at least attempted murder, elder abuse and infliction of injury in connection of attack. Attempted murder is a life sentence in California. She's fucked. Again, might want to read something.

Lets look back on this after the fact and see how it turns out.  When you are proven wrong,  and I have little doubt that you will be, I hope that you have enough respect to accept it.  In the same vein, if I am wrong, I will admit it. (Because I am not insane)