- 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: New shooting in Minnesota
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:20 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
That was never going to happen. This starting point alone is too aggressive.
Why is it too aggressive? Is the fear the law will be followed too well?
So again, you're unable/unwilling to give specifics on what you'd do differently. You just know what the feds are doing now is very, very bad.
1
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:20 pm to David_DJS
I was raised by a police officer. I know that benefit of the doubt left when he fought back. Those guys want to go home to their kids. You don't get to throw a flag for instant replay. You make split second decisions. You asses threat faster than any armchair loser on reddit. The guy should not have been armed and instigating an officer. Even when pepper sprayed he could have gone prone and given up. Hands away from the holster. Once again, Darwin award.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:21 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
It still looks like many are overlooking the video Bobby posted where it appears a firearm is dropped by the deceased.
That doesn't really help justify the shooting. Same as the guy being disarmed. If the gun isn't in his hands, where is the imminent threat of deadly force?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:21 pm to TDTOM
quote:
I don't know how to embed.
when you reply, hit the button below link and img that looks like this
< >
paste your link in there
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:21 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
Unless someone can point to another weapon, grey jacket is the source for the first shot
The first two shots sound identical to me in characteristics. But I’m no expert.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:22 pm to AlwysATgr
quote:
I think he was asking how were the LEOs to have known that he was completely disarmed?
And that's not really relevant or the standard to discuss.
quote:
Another firearm? Explosives on his body or in proximity?
If they didn't know these existed, per your hypo, how could they perceive them to be an imminent threat of death?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:22 pm to SlowFlowPro
Did he pull it out?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:22 pm to Blizzard of Chizz
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:22 pm to jeff5891
I don’t defend stupid people, shouldn’t have brought one there either. There is no legitimate reason to have a gun at a protest unless you plan on using it. This isn’t Tombstone tough guy
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:23 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
How could they perceive a legitimate/reasonable fear of imminent threat if he was disarmed?
They knew that he was armed. They did not know whether he was still armed. They aren’t going to trust their lives to guessing at how many weapons a person (who they knew to have at least one weapon), has.
And you still haven’t addressed my question about what the “moderate” means to recover illegals in Minnesota is.
This post was edited on 1/24/26 at 5:24 pm
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:23 pm to David_DJS
quote:
Why is it too aggressive?
It's not possible and sets up unrealistic expectations in the rabid partisans.
Like, it's not physically possible for our immigration courts to process tens of millions in 4 years.
quote:
Is the fear the law will be followed too well?
Actually following the law in the immigration-deportation process would never permit those numbers. That's the point.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:24 pm to Rip Torner
Not much of a 2nd amendment guy?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:25 pm to G2160
quote:
They knew that he was armed.
That is only tangentially related to the question.
quote:
They did not know whether he was still armed.
And?
quote:
They aren’t going to trust their lives to guessing at how many weapons a person (who they knew to have at least one weapon), has.
So police can kill any of us if they suspect we may have weapons on us that they don't know about?
Bold.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:25 pm to Thirteen
quote:
clear as day unholstered
Two of them have their guns out at that point.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:26 pm to lsuguy84
quote:
Not much of a 2nd amendment guy?
Tons of guys who hate Kyle Rittenhouse.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:26 pm to the808bass
quote:
He wasn’t just carrying. Don’t be retarded. He was 1) carrying 2) actively interfering with police 3) got into a physical altercation with police You can say “just carrying,” and then everyone knows you’re not a serious person.
Thanks. Now you get it. We saw the same thing on Jan 6th 2021. Should those protestors, that were legally carrying And in an altercation with the police, have been shot?
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:26 pm to lsuguy84
It's not even 2nd amendment. No one goes to a potentially violent situation with a weapon and is a bystander. Go hop around eastern Ukraine with a weapon. I won't shed a tear when you get blasted.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Word salad to him is a sentence with more than 4 words 
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:27 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Actually following the law in the immigration-deportation process would never permit those numbers. That's the point.
Which is why the leftist policy of allowing them unfettered entrance was always going to win.
Allow millions in. Complain on every single and fight every single deportation.
Posted on 1/24/26 at 5:27 pm to jeff5891
quote:One guy carried a .38 revolver. Try again.
Hmm.. I mean our brethren carried them on Jan 6th
Page 50 of 67
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News