In this task, you are given a public comment from online platforms. You are expected to classify the comment into two classes: obscene and non-obscene. A comment is obscene if it is considered offensive to the public sense of decency, for example because it too obviously relates to sex or contains language regarded as taboo in polite usage.
--------
Question: Comment: At the moment he chose to pull the trigger, there was -- literally -- no threat, no possibility for "any degree of force" to be used against anyone. 

These aren't just facts - they're uncontradicted facts. The defense is just hoping the jury will ignore the facts by (a) convolution of the time frame so that earlier events are intermixed with later events, (b) pointing to facts unknown and unknowable to the defendant at the time, and (c) insisting that possibilities that are physically impossible could be possible.

That said, I'd be betting on juror nullification of the law in this case. 

But kudos to the prosecutor for not ignoring such a clear-cut, textbook case of cold blooded murder - in El Paso Cty nonetheless! (That fact alone should convince observers of how obvious a crime this was. Prosecuting a Green Beret for executing a scumbag! I'm certain the prosecutor looked for any alternative other than prosecution! Now that is dedication to the law - lady justice with a blindfold.)

Answer: Non-obscene


Question: Comment: This article is pretty much all garbage You have 50% of the facts right but thats what you get when your a shit reporter for the shit herald. oh well.

Answer: Obscene


Question: Comment: This is the kind of gimmicky, meaningless crap that gets made when ad people and bureaucrats are hired to create "culture."

Toronto is filled with incredibly knowledgeable and talented writers and artists who could have created something memorable and meaningful and that wasn't a cheap mimicking of a beer commercial.

This is utterly embarrassing. I hope kids don't notice it.

Answer:
Obscene