- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
Leftists want to know why they can't shoot ICE agents
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:32 pm
16
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:33 pm to Smeg
She shouldn’t wear those types of pants…
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:35 pm to jizzle6609
quote:
She shouldn’t wear those types of pants…
We see all the dimples
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:38 pm to Houag80
quote:
Run that fat cvnt over.
With that fatass they would’ve dragged the body for miles
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:40 pm to Smeg
We need to let darwinism run its course. Geez
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:40 pm to Smeg
He should try it, but he won't.
He's just a soft wanna be talking shite.
He's just a soft wanna be talking shite.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:41 pm to LordSaintly
quote:
We see all the dimples
Can see from 30 feet she's not carrying, we're good.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:43 pm to Smeg
That vehicle obviously hit them, and we have established that this forum is nearly-unanimous in the view that a vehicle is a "deadly weapon" in every situation. It was moving at LEAST 2-3 mph.
Would those protesters have been reasonable in believing that the use of deadly force against the driver was necessary to protect themselves from death or serious bodily injury?
Sarcasm aside, those folks would have been no more justified in using deadly force against the driver than ANYONE ELSE would be in shooting a random driver attempting to drive past them as they blocked his path.
Would those protesters have been reasonable in believing that the use of deadly force against the driver was necessary to protect themselves from death or serious bodily injury?
Sarcasm aside, those folks would have been no more justified in using deadly force against the driver than ANYONE ELSE would be in shooting a random driver attempting to drive past them as they blocked his path.
This post was edited on 1/12/26 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:46 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
Hank, you're one dumb fricking aggie.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:46 pm to Smeg
WHIWASUV
[Would Hit It With An SUV]
[Would Hit It With An SUV]
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:49 pm to Smeg
Should’ve never given kids bicycle helmets we wouldn’t have this problem. They use to get weeded out. The mayor in Minneapolis probably still has knee pads. Just sayin
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:52 pm to Smeg
Now these frickers need to suffer some shite
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:57 pm to Smeg
Those were fking US Marshals lmao.
Idiots.
Idiots.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:58 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
That vehicle obviously hit them, and we have established that this forum is nearly-unanimous in the view that a vehicle is a "deadly weapon" in every situation. It was moving at LEAST 2-3 mph.
Yer tarded.
That's ok, my wife is tarded. She's a pilot.
Yer tarded.
That's ok, my wife is tarded. She's a pilot.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 3:59 pm to Smeg
Those are US Marshall's in that vehicle. These animals have some nerve to frick around with a USM.
Every law enforcement vehicle should be outfit with a huge tear gas dispenser on the front and rear rooftops. Spray the vermin and they'll scatter like roaches.
Every law enforcement vehicle should be outfit with a huge tear gas dispenser on the front and rear rooftops. Spray the vermin and they'll scatter like roaches.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:02 pm to RelentlessAnalysis
quote:Correct, and I'm here for the cult excuses.
That vehicle obviously hit them, and we have established that this forum is nearly-unanimous in the view that a vehicle is a "deadly weapon" in every situation. It was moving at LEAST 2-3 mph.
Would those protesters have been reasonable in believing that the use of deadly force against the driver was necessary to protect themselves from death or serious bodily injury?
Sarcasm aside, those folks would have been no more justified in using deadly force against the driver than ANYONE ELSE would be in shooting a random driver attempting to drive past them as they blocked his path.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:06 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
Correct, and I'm here for the cult excuses.
So your basic argument is why can't a bank robber legally shoot and kill the police that are pointing guns at him because he fears for his life?
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:07 pm to Smeg
quote:That might be accurate if the innocent bystanders were breaking the law.
Correct, and I'm here for the cult excuses.
So your basic argument is why can't a bank robber legally shoot and kill the police that are pointing guns at him because he fears for his life?
Good try, though.
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:09 pm to TX Tiger
Not breaking the law!
Cult!
Shoot the tires Corky!
Cult!
Shoot the tires Corky!
Posted on 1/12/26 at 4:09 pm to TX Tiger
quote:
That might be accurate if the innocent bystanders were breaking the law.
Good try, though.
It is illegal to obstruct law officers from doing their job. It is illegal to attempt to unlawfully detain someone.
Page 1 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News