- 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 1/10/26 at 10:18 pm to Rekrul
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:18 pm to Rekrul
quote:
How fricking stupid are you to think these two idiots weren’t impeding their official duties? What do you think the women were doing there in the first place?
wait hold on, explain how a woman in her vehicle was impeding the officers official duty first.
what official duty was he performing that she impeded.
look, the chick was dumb and made plenty of life choice mistakes but I'm not sure I would say that she deserved lethal force.
we should all be sure to hold police accountable for their actions and if they make a quick decision to administer lethal force it should always be scrutinized especially when they could have made decisions prior to avoid it (such as not standing in front of a vehicle when they are specifically advised not to do such in those situations).
the protests are ridiculous and the woman is no big loss but we also cant allow police to be judge jury and executioner in situations that they help create. theres a reason the lethal force isn't permitted to kill someone unless the officer is being threatened by means specifically "other than the vehicle"
if there were other people besides that officer she was threatening to run over then he would be completely off the hook 100%.
but the only person in danger was himself and he put himself there.
2
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:32 pm to sgallo3
quote:
wait hold on, explain how a woman in her vehicle was impeding the officers official duty first. what official duty was he performing that she impeded.
Dumb question, but here is your easy answer:
Immigration operation.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:35 pm to sgallo3
quote:
I'm not sure I would say that she deserved lethal force.
She gave the officer legit reason To defend himself
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 10:36 pm
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:49 pm to djsdawg
quote:
Dumb question, but here is your easy answer:
Immigration operation.
which illegal immigrant was he in the process of arresting when he pulled his gun on the legal citizen that he shot?
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:49 pm to djsdawg
quote:
She gave the officer legit reason To defend himself
defend himself from the vehicle that he walked in front of when protocol specifically states to not do that for that reason?
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 10:51 pm
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:50 pm to rwestmore7
quote:it is when you stop on the street specifically to interfere, a.k.a. obstruct, federal officers from egress (in this case) during an operation.
If the answer is blocking the street, that is almost always a state or local traffic issue, not a federal crime
quote:you seem to think they stopped her. She stopped herself, and therein lies the federal felony.
What specific federal statute did she violate that gave ICE lawful authority to stop her vehicle in the first place?
quote:she was not a bystander. She blocked a public street specifically to interfere with ICE.
Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every bystander nearby.
quote:they did not stop her. She placed herself there.
which requires actual force or threat of force and not just being inconvenient, would the stop become lawful.
quote:it was not moving. That's the issue, she refused to move thereby blocking an ongoing legal ICE operation.
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.
quote:it wasn't a 'stop' for a traffic violation. It wasn't a 'stop' or detain at all. It only became a detain when she refused to move which was obstructing federal officers.
An officer cannot create a vehicle threat by stepping into the path of a car during a questionable stop.
quote:this was not a bystander or a traffic issue, stop or not. She was blocking the vehicles of ICE by choice.
When situations involving bystanders or traffic arise,
Posted on 1/10/26 at 10:53 pm to sgallo3
quote:
which illegal immigrant was he in the process of arresting?
I can’t say. Perhaps the invader that came across the border?
What I can say is that…
She saw him.
She hit the gas.
He engaged his assailant.
The end.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:19 pm to djsdawg
quote:
She gave the officer legit reason To defend himself
How do you "defend yourself" against a moving vehicle with a handgun? Please walk me through the analysis.
You can't reasonably claim self-defense when your means of defense is literally incapable of stopping the threat.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:25 pm to Masterag
quote:It wasn't moving when he stepped in front of it (as she was being ordered to exit the vehicle).
How do you "defend yourself" against a moving vehicle with a handgun? Please walk me through the analysis.
Why would he do that? He was cover; and to provide adequate cover and avoid bullet deflection he needed to lined up straight as he could be to the curvature of the windshield (the "normal line", perpendicular to the tangent).
quote:but yet he did. She was unable to drive off and potentially strike bystanders or other LEO in a residential neighborhood.
You can't reasonably claim self-defense when your means of defense is literally incapable of stopping the threat.
Why? because he lined up correctly and unalived her.
This post was edited on 1/10/26 at 11:26 pm
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:25 pm to Masterag
quote:
How do you "defend yourself" against a moving vehicle with a handgun? Please walk me through the analysis.
No analysis needed. There was a real-life test in Minneapolis, Minnesota a couple of days ago. This woman tried to run-over an officer and he shot her with a handgun and defended himself (and others).
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:40 pm to Rekrul
You keep asserting “impeding their official duties” as if that phrase itself is a felony. It isn’t. So the first question still hasn’t been answered. Where, specifically, is “impeding their official duties” defined as a standalone federal crime in the U.S. Code?
Because if you’re relying on 18 U.S.C. § 111, that statute does not criminalize mere interference or inconvenience. It requires a forcible act, and it only applies when the officer is engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Both of those elements have to be established with facts that existed before the attempt to detain her.
So walk it through in order:
1. What specific statute was being violated before the detention?
2. What was the forcible act at that moment?
3. What lawful authority did the officer have over her, as opposed to someone else nearby?
If you can’t answer those three questions with actual code sections and facts, then saying “they were impeding” is just a conclusion, not a legal argument.
And yes, the officer’s positioning matters. Courts and use-of-force policy both recognize that officers cannot create the very danger they later point to as justification. Whether the car was stopped or moving, you still have to establish lawful authority and the elements of the offense before the encounter escalated.
Because if you’re relying on 18 U.S.C. § 111, that statute does not criminalize mere interference or inconvenience. It requires a forcible act, and it only applies when the officer is engaged in the lawful performance of official duties as to that person. Both of those elements have to be established with facts that existed before the attempt to detain her.
So walk it through in order:
1. What specific statute was being violated before the detention?
2. What was the forcible act at that moment?
3. What lawful authority did the officer have over her, as opposed to someone else nearby?
If you can’t answer those three questions with actual code sections and facts, then saying “they were impeding” is just a conclusion, not a legal argument.
And yes, the officer’s positioning matters. Courts and use-of-force policy both recognize that officers cannot create the very danger they later point to as justification. Whether the car was stopped or moving, you still have to establish lawful authority and the elements of the offense before the encounter escalated.
Posted on 1/10/26 at 11:46 pm to djsdawg
That’s not an answer in the legal sense. “Immigration operation” is a description of what ICE was doing in the area. It is not a statute, and it is not an element of any criminal offense.
The question was what specific official duty was the agent lawfully performing as to her that she impeded?
Under 18 U.S.C. 111 and every other federal obstruction statute, the officer must be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties with respect to the person being charged. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every third party nearby. So if the claim is that she committed a felony, then point to the code section and walk through the elements:
1. What statute applied to her at that moment?
2. What was the forcible act?
3. What facts existed before the detention that created probable cause?
Until those are answered, “they were doing an immigration operation” is just a narrative, not a legal justification.
The question was what specific official duty was the agent lawfully performing as to her that she impeded?
Under 18 U.S.C. 111 and every other federal obstruction statute, the officer must be engaged in the lawful performance of official duties with respect to the person being charged. Authority over an immigration target does not automatically extend to every third party nearby. So if the claim is that she committed a felony, then point to the code section and walk through the elements:
1. What statute applied to her at that moment?
2. What was the forcible act?
3. What facts existed before the detention that created probable cause?
Until those are answered, “they were doing an immigration operation” is just a narrative, not a legal justification.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 2:30 am to rwestmore7
Lol its funny watching the flock dissipate and thread fall off when we bring up law. I know we are a nation full of idiots but laws and protocol exist for a reason and it isnt to protect libs. Its called freedom
Posted on 1/11/26 at 3:20 am to sgallo3
Freedom to not be run over by lesbian poets is a freedom I never expected to appreciate, but thank you
Posted on 1/11/26 at 3:35 am to rwestmore7
They are LEOs. They possess all Leo powers when on duty & even off!
Try walking up & punching an IRS LEO!
Try walking up & punching an IRS LEO!
Posted on 1/11/26 at 4:46 am to rocksteady
quote:
Freedom to not be run over by lesbian poets is a freedom I never expected to appreciate, but thank you
thats a danger we all face.
but if you decide to shoot her you probably should make sure you have a valid reason. It isn't self defense if you create the situation.
I think the officer has a great case. I also think it should be tested whether or not anyone wouldve died if he wasn't armed. any time you pull a weapon and create a more dangerous scenario than the worst possible outcome if you hadn't pulled one as a LEO then you have the onus to show why it was required.
he failed the first rule which is don't stand in front of a vehicle.
everything that he did that followed that failure is a result of his original failure.
that isn't to say the woman did nothing wrong and didn't also cause the officer to feel like he was in danger. thats just a fact. his initial failure led to the death of a civilian who wasn't a threat to anyone except for the officer that made her one
Posted on 1/11/26 at 4:52 am to sgallo3
quote:
It isn't self defense if you create the situation.
In this post, noted police expert sgallo opines that police can never use lethal force when arresting a civilian.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 5:49 am to the808bass
quote:
In this post, noted police expert sgallo opines that police can never use lethal force when arresting a civilian.
I'm not the one that created the rules that state an officer should never insert himself in front of a vehicle or that an officer isn't allowed to use lethal force vs a fleeing suspect unless the suspect is threatening the officer with a weapon other than the vehicle they are fleeing in.
maybe you and him don't like the terms but that doesn't mean an officer can just throw them out whenever he feels like it because officers have been proven to make mistakes just like everyone else.
This post was edited on 1/11/26 at 5:52 am
Posted on 1/11/26 at 6:45 am 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.
I am saddened that your level of idiocy is allowed to roam freely.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 6:59 am to rwestmore7
Plain and simple dumbass. No one knew if she was illegal or not. She was in control of a weapon and was commanded to stop.
Case closed.
Case closed.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News