- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 30 year LEO weighs in on the ICE shooting in Minnesota
Posted on 1/9/26 at 10:55 am to rwestmore7
Posted on 1/9/26 at 10:55 am to rwestmore7
quote:
rwestmore7
Just walk away
0
Posted on 1/9/26 at 11:10 am to Houag80
quote:
Lol. Define the unlawful request you ignorant shitbag.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 11:12 am to BBONDS25
quote:Is twisting the event to meet your political bias right or wrong?
It isn't about winning. It's about what is right and what is wrong.
Is trying to run over a federal agent right or wrong?
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:31 pm to TX Tiger
Your actions And responses to my question show you to be a complete and utter fool and totally ignorant
I feel some pity for you because of your inability to understand how the law in the United States works and if you think that you can sit there and argue with law-enforcement over right and wrong God bless you and I hope you don't get shot
I feel some pity for you because of your inability to understand how the law in the United States works and if you think that you can sit there and argue with law-enforcement over right and wrong God bless you and I hope you don't get shot
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:46 pm to L.A.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:50 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
Is twisting the event to meet your political bias right or wrong?
Your attempt to twist this with your liberal slant is wrong. It failed.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:53 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Is twisting the event to meet your political bias right or wrong?
Your attempt to twist this with your liberal slant is wrong. It failed.
I love how you folks prove my point better than I could. Well done.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:56 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
love how you folks prove my point better than I could. Well done.
What point do you think you are proving?
No one is saying this isn’t right vs left/wrong. It very much is.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:57 pm to TX Tiger
Prove my point
Cult!
Cult!
Posted on 1/9/26 at 3:59 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
Then correct me.
From their website:
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a federal agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible for enforcing immigration and customs laws, investigating threats, and removing undocumented immigrants from the U.S., operating through Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). It handles interior immigration enforcement, distinct from CBP's border role, and its officers possess authority to stop, detain, and arrest individuals suspected of immigration violations, while also investigating transnational crimes.
From Statue 18
Interfering with federal law enforcement can lead to serious federal charges, including felonies, resulting in fines, imprisonment (potentially years for violent interference), and criminal records, under statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 111 (assaulting/resisting officers) and § 118 (interference with protective functions), with actions like obstructing, resisting, intimidating, or giving false information all prohibited, potentially under both criminal statutes and agency regulations.
Policies from sources like the Department of Justice regulate the use of firearms against moving vehicles. Deadly force is justified in specific, limited circumstances: when an officer reasonably believes the vehicle poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, and there are no other reasonable alternatives, including moving out of the vehicle's path. Deadly force is also justified if someone in the vehicle threatens others with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. An officer's decision to use force is judged based on the "objective reasonableness" at the time, considering the tense, uncertain circumstances, rather than with hindsight.
The wife telling her to Drive Drive when the officer was in front of the vehicel is covered by the above.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:01 pm to djsdawg
quote:Thank you for admitting it. If your mind is already made up given your political views, there's no chance of being objective. That much is evident by the two days I've been here.
love how you folks prove my point better than I could. Well done.
What point do you think you are proving?
No one is saying this isn’t right vs left/wrong. It very much is.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:04 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
If you are a U.S. citizen, ICE has NO LAWFUL BASIS to detain you under immigration law just because it suspects a violation of those laws.
Are you really this stupid?
She wasn’t being detained under immigration law.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:06 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
it. If your mind is already made up given your political views, there's no chance of being objective
Well, The facts of the matter, objectively, shaped my mind, so you are wrong yet again.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:26 pm to riverdiver
quote:
Are you really this stupid? She wasn’t being detained under immigration law.
I think he is.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 4:54 pm to BBONDS25
quote:
trying to run over a federal agent right or wrong?
A liberal like TX would imply it is okay.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 6:00 pm to dafif
quote:
Well, OK, let's take a look at that statement 1. Is coming from another state to put yourself perpendicular in a roadway to block in the traffic right or wrong 2. Is refusing to get out of your vehicle when law-enforcement officers command you right or wrong 3. Is putting your vehicle in drive and accelerating after being told to exit your vehicle right or wrong?
I bet the dude unsuccessfully answered each equation.
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:48 pm to djsdawg
Very few on here are as vapid as he is
Pretty astounding to see what's written -
Pretty astounding to see what's written -
Posted on 1/9/26 at 9:50 pm to L.A.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 8:23 am to L.A.
Aww, cut him some slack. He’s just being Jewish.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 7:38 pm to winkchance
What you quoted from ICE’s website and Title 18 is all correct in general.
But none of it answers the actual starting question in this case.
ICE’s mission statement explains what ICE is responsible for.
Title 18 explains what counts as interference once an officer is already acting lawfully toward the person being charged.
DOJ use of force policy explains when deadly force may be justified during a lawful encounter.
All of those assume the same thing first:
that the officer already had lawful authority over the specific person when the encounter began.
That is the part everyone keeps skipping.
ICE having authority to enforce immigration law does not automatically give them authority over a third party U.S. citizen.
Interference laws do not create jurisdiction. They only apply after lawful authority already exists.
Use of force policy does not fix an unlawful stop. It only governs conduct once the encounter is lawful.
So the question still starts here:
What specific federal statute did she violate that gave ICE lawful authority to stop her vehicle in the first place?
If the answer is blocking the street, that is almost always a state or local traffic issue, not a federal crime, and ICE does not have general police powers to enforce traffic law on U.S. citizens. The correct response would be to involve local police.
If the answer is interfering with the operation, then the elements of a real federal obstruction statute still have to be met.
Those statutes require the officer to be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every bystander nearby.
Only if ICE had independent probable cause that she herself was committing a federal crime they are authorized to enforce, such as forcible interference under 18 U.S.C. 111 which requires actual force or threat of force and not just being inconvenient, would the stop become lawful.
And on the vehicle issue, DOJ policy is clear that officers should not step in front of a moving vehicle unless deadly force is otherwise unavoidable. An officer cannot create a vehicle threat by stepping into the path of a car during a questionable stop. If the original stop lacked lawful basis, that self created danger seriously weakens any later claim of reasonableness.
That is why this is not something you can settle with a quick Google answer.
It comes down to statutory authority, jurisdiction over the specific person, and the actual elements of the offense.
ETA:
This is also exactly why ICE typically conducts operations with local law enforcement and other agencies.
Local police have general authority to deal with traffic violations, crowd control, and third-party interference. ICE does not.
When situations involving bystanders or traffic arise, the proper response is for local police to step in, because that is who actually has jurisdiction over those kinds of offenses.
That inter-agency setup exists for a reason. Each agency’s authority is different, and those limits matter.
But none of it answers the actual starting question in this case.
ICE’s mission statement explains what ICE is responsible for.
Title 18 explains what counts as interference once an officer is already acting lawfully toward the person being charged.
DOJ use of force policy explains when deadly force may be justified during a lawful encounter.
All of those assume the same thing first:
that the officer already had lawful authority over the specific person when the encounter began.
That is the part everyone keeps skipping.
ICE having authority to enforce immigration law does not automatically give them authority over a third party U.S. citizen.
Interference laws do not create jurisdiction. They only apply after lawful authority already exists.
Use of force policy does not fix an unlawful stop. It only governs conduct once the encounter is lawful.
So the question still starts here:
What specific federal statute did she violate that gave ICE lawful authority to stop her vehicle in the first place?
If the answer is blocking the street, that is almost always a state or local traffic issue, not a federal crime, and ICE does not have general police powers to enforce traffic law on U.S. citizens. The correct response would be to involve local police.
If the answer is interfering with the operation, then the elements of a real federal obstruction statute still have to be met.
Those statutes require the officer to be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every bystander nearby.
Only if ICE had independent probable cause that she herself was committing a federal crime they are authorized to enforce, such as forcible interference under 18 U.S.C. 111 which requires actual force or threat of force and not just being inconvenient, would the stop become lawful.
And on the vehicle issue, DOJ policy is clear that officers should not step in front of a moving vehicle unless deadly force is otherwise unavoidable. An officer cannot create a vehicle threat by stepping into the path of a car during a questionable stop. If the original stop lacked lawful basis, that self created danger seriously weakens any later claim of reasonableness.
That is why this is not something you can settle with a quick Google answer.
It comes down to statutory authority, jurisdiction over the specific person, and the actual elements of the offense.
ETA:
This is also exactly why ICE typically conducts operations with local law enforcement and other agencies.
Local police have general authority to deal with traffic violations, crowd control, and third-party interference. ICE does not.
When situations involving bystanders or traffic arise, the proper response is for local police to step in, because that is who actually has jurisdiction over those kinds of offenses.
That inter-agency setup exists for a reason. Each agency’s authority is different, and those limits matter.
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 7:43 pm
Page 6 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News