- 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: Has the dead guy's body armor been discussed yet
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:23 pm to Meauxjeaux
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:23 pm to Meauxjeaux
He reached for the mace as well. There is absolutely no doubt that he intended to interfere. What he intended to happen after that is anyone's guess. My hunch is that it was a suicide mission and he volunteered for it.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:33 pm to RED DAWN REDUX
quote:
on national TV saying dude assaulted a federal agent??? Lied to America.
Another moron that doesnt know the definition of assault
quote:
I worked for DHS
Which is either a) a lie or b) hilarious that a person that doesnt know what an assault consists of, is complaining about the abilities of others
Posted on 1/27/26 at 12:55 pm to TBoy
Every bit of that is bullshite. You're not accounting for what he was doing beforehand. You're not accounting for the coordination on Signal. You're not accounting for the fact that he pushes up on the agent and then grabs at his mace. You're not accounting for the fact that he was given commands that he ignored.
HE BROKE THE LAW!
HE INTERFERED WITH ARMED AGENTS!
HE DID SO WHILE STRAPPED!
HE WAS EITHER UNINTENTIONALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, OR HE VOLUNTEERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE!
HE BROKE THE LAW!
HE INTERFERED WITH ARMED AGENTS!
HE DID SO WHILE STRAPPED!
HE WAS EITHER UNINTENTIONALLY IRRESPONSIBLE, OR HE VOLUNTEERED HIMSELF AS A SACRIFICE!
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:05 pm to jawnybnsc
Did the guy in the back have the best vantage point of him reaching to his holster?
Or the worst vantage point to not be aware the gun was removed.
Or the worst vantage point to not be aware the gun was removed.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:32 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
You're not accounting for the fact that he pushes up on the agent and then grabs at his mace. You're not accounting for the fact that he was given commands that he ignored.
WTF are you talking about? This is ALL made up. Fiction.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 1:54 pm to RED DAWN REDUX
quote:
Are you functionally retarded?
Even if I was, I'd still have twice your IQ. I believe you could be outsmarted by three medium-sized rocks.
Anyway, have a nice day.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:35 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
The JD6 folks were not yelling and screaming at police.
quote:
They were not carrying sidearms with extra magazines
quote:
and wearing body armor.

Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:40 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Body armor or a legally carried firearm may increase scrutiny, sure, but neither justifies deadly force on its own. Law enforcement training is explicit that equipment and appearance are not substitutes for an imminent threat. Plenty of people wear soft armor because they are afraid of being shot, not because they intend to shoot someone. And that’s where the hypocrisy shows. If this were framed as vigilante self defense like Kyle Rittenhouse, the same people would argue that carrying a gun and wearing armor shows fear and preparation, not intent. Suddenly here it’s treated as proof of dangerousness. You can’t have it both ways.
Regardless, none of that changes what’s visible on video. Five agents on one unarmed person on the ground. The question is still how an imminent threat existed at that moment. If someone has evidence as concrete as the video itself that explains that, I’m open to it. Until then, pointing to armor or speculation doesn’t override what people can plainly see.
Regardless, none of that changes what’s visible on video. Five agents on one unarmed person on the ground. The question is still how an imminent threat existed at that moment. If someone has evidence as concrete as the video itself that explains that, I’m open to it. Until then, pointing to armor or speculation doesn’t override what people can plainly see.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:41 pm to Swamp Angel
Are you stupid or just plain brainwashed?
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:42 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Combine that with the likely miss fire of that crappy p320,
Pretti was a radicalized domestic terrorist. Nobody ever said he was a good one or a smart one.
Pretti was a radicalized domestic terrorist. Nobody ever said he was a good one or a smart one.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:42 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
because they are afraid of being shot,
Now in what likely scenario would someone believe they would be the target of a law enforcement bullet???
Use your head for something other than a hat stand
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:46 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
It’s literally in the OP. Body armor in the title is simply a catch all term used for clarity
Show me the best pic of him that shows the body armor or plate carrier.
I have not yet seen it. I just want to understand if this is a trending narrative or if there is evidence to draw such a conclusion.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:47 pm to Robin Masters
Hmm... one where the government already shot one protester? Ding Ding Ding
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:50 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
Hmm... one where the government already shot one protester? Ding Ding Ding
You mean where the protestor was using a deadly weapon on an agent?
Exactamundo!
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:52 pm to jawnybnsc
quote:
My hunch is that it was a suicide mission and he volunteered for it.
Doubtful.
He was likely just another fool who had been told his whole life that conservatives are evil and you do not have to obey any law or order given by people you deem to be evil or in the wrong. Most of these people are only recently finding out that there is a whole world of reality out there beyond they social media accounts. And in real life "talk shite, get hit" is the standard.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 2:58 pm to Stat M Repairman
quote:
He voluntarily assumed the risk he’d get shot.
As did Ashley Babbit.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 3:00 pm to Robin Masters
Posted on 1/27/26 at 3:21 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
are you talking about? The agent took his gun from him where it was stored in its holster that he was legally carrying with a permit. It must be so nice living in an alternative reality.
I was referring to the previous protestor who got killed. The point, which sailed a great distance over your sloped head, was the thought process used by Pretti when he decided to wear a vest. Your claim that he wouldn’t have worn one because that is only something someone who fears getting shot would do is pretty fricking stupid considering….wait for it…he ended up getting himself shot.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 3:49 pm to rwestmore7
quote:
The agent took his gun from him where it was stored in its holster that he was legally carrying with a permit. It must be so nice living in an alternative reality.
Had it even been established that he had a holster?
I can’t tell if he was just carrying it inside his waistband like some 1970s tv show or if he had an inside the waistband holster. But I have not seen any disclosure of a holster.
Posted on 1/27/26 at 4:11 pm to Willie Stroker
Shall not be infringed as long as it’s in a holster. Get out of here with your semantics
Popular
Back to top


1





