- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- 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
I don't know what will eventually come out about this shooting...
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:00 am
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:00 am
And honestly I can't decipher enough from the videos no matter how much they are slowed down to be able to tell purely from those what happened.
If it turns out that an agent disarmed the guy and the weapon fired as he was running away causing the other agents to fire on the decedent, then my assessment is that this was a tragic accident, but I can't blame the agents. They knew at that point that the guy had a gun and the sound of a gun shot is a reasonable threat to officer safety in that situation IMO.
Like SFP pointed out, a powder residue test will show whether the gun did go off in that agent's hand regardless of the video. Hopefully they performed one.
But here is what I am convinced of so far:
1. Don't see a guy actively attacking ICE in those videos. I see a guy inserting himself into chaos, yes. I see a guy intervening into whatever was going on with the woman in the video, yes. I see a guy turning away from pepper spray. And...
2. I see a guy in one shot clearly holding both hands up and there wasn't a gun in either one of them.
3. I also don't give any credence to the official account by the ICE CO. It sounds exactly like every report I have ever seen or heard about in which the police realize they have fricked up after the fact and deliberately slant the report to make it sound like what they did was justified.
4. All the video evidence seems to corroborate the eyewitness testimony that I have seen, not the ICE CO testimony.
Now numbers 2-4 don't mean that the shooting was unjustified, even if they pan out the way I'm leaning right now. If the gun was removed and went off, then I think it was justified.
But I'm leaning very far away from believing a narrative of, "The guy came armed b/c he wanted to tangle with ICE agents and he actively attacked them and brandished a weapon and/or he went for his gun to shoot someone."
The video just doesn't show that. Any of that, IMO. It shows exactly what the non-ICE eyewitness testimony says.
If it turns out that an agent disarmed the guy and the weapon fired as he was running away causing the other agents to fire on the decedent, then my assessment is that this was a tragic accident, but I can't blame the agents. They knew at that point that the guy had a gun and the sound of a gun shot is a reasonable threat to officer safety in that situation IMO.
Like SFP pointed out, a powder residue test will show whether the gun did go off in that agent's hand regardless of the video. Hopefully they performed one.
But here is what I am convinced of so far:
1. Don't see a guy actively attacking ICE in those videos. I see a guy inserting himself into chaos, yes. I see a guy intervening into whatever was going on with the woman in the video, yes. I see a guy turning away from pepper spray. And...
2. I see a guy in one shot clearly holding both hands up and there wasn't a gun in either one of them.
3. I also don't give any credence to the official account by the ICE CO. It sounds exactly like every report I have ever seen or heard about in which the police realize they have fricked up after the fact and deliberately slant the report to make it sound like what they did was justified.
4. All the video evidence seems to corroborate the eyewitness testimony that I have seen, not the ICE CO testimony.
Now numbers 2-4 don't mean that the shooting was unjustified, even if they pan out the way I'm leaning right now. If the gun was removed and went off, then I think it was justified.
But I'm leaning very far away from believing a narrative of, "The guy came armed b/c he wanted to tangle with ICE agents and he actively attacked them and brandished a weapon and/or he went for his gun to shoot someone."
The video just doesn't show that. Any of that, IMO. It shows exactly what the non-ICE eyewitness testimony says.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 12:01 am
5
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:03 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
Don't see a guy actively attacking ICE in those videos. I see a guy inserting himself into chaos, yes. I see a guy intervening into whatever was going on with the woman in the video, yes. I see a guy turning away from pepper spray. And...
That's true. The guy he pushed (attacked), which led to him getting maced, is a Border Patrol agent.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 12:04 am
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:12 am to wackatimesthree
Honestly the response from leadership is way more indefensible than the actual shooting. The shooting is chaotic and the video is unclear. Nobody has a clear understanding of precisely what happened and why in the ~30 seconds or so from the time the altercation happened to when the shooting occurred. God only knows right now if that gun accidentally fired, or who said what, or where the guys hands were fumbling around relative to the weapons carried by the officers on top of him, or what was going through those officers minds.
But then today, Bovino said “If you call agents Gestapo and what they do kidnapping, there are consequences to your actions, and I think we saw that yesterday.”
Yesterday Noem said the guy was a threat, that he intended to hurt officers, and the shooting was justified, purely based on the fact that that he was lawfully carrying a gun.
These are core first and second amendment principles. If you said censorship and gun rights were important issues when democrats were in office, you shouldn’t stand for this response by Noem and Bovino now.
And the sad part is if you’re a true red-pilled MAGA - what they’re saying isn’t even remotely necessary to defend the officers in this case or justify their actions.
But then today, Bovino said “If you call agents Gestapo and what they do kidnapping, there are consequences to your actions, and I think we saw that yesterday.”
Yesterday Noem said the guy was a threat, that he intended to hurt officers, and the shooting was justified, purely based on the fact that that he was lawfully carrying a gun.
These are core first and second amendment principles. If you said censorship and gun rights were important issues when democrats were in office, you shouldn’t stand for this response by Noem and Bovino now.
And the sad part is if you’re a true red-pilled MAGA - what they’re saying isn’t even remotely necessary to defend the officers in this case or justify their actions.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 12:16 am
Posted on 1/26/26 at 12:30 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
I don't know what will eventually come out about this shooting...
Careful man. Sounds like you’re being reasonable and using logic. From my experience that’s not allowed in this thread.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 1:21 am to Crimson77
quote:
purely based on the fact that that he was lawfully carrying a gun
So he wasn't trying to be detained/arrested by multiple ICE agents?
He wasn't resisting that detainment by fighting them while on the ground? Doing so with a loaded weapon on his person?
What do you think LEO does when fighting with someone and THEN discovering that they have a weapon and could possibly get to it?
But yeah...they saw he was lawfully carrying a gun and said "Hey, let's go frick with that guy".
Posted on 1/26/26 at 5:26 am to wackatimesthree
We don’t care what you see…. He was looking for trouble, he found it. Full stop
Posted on 1/26/26 at 7:53 am to DMAN1968
quote:
What do you think LEO does when fighting with someone and THEN discovering that they have a weapon and could possibly get to it?
Well typically it doesn't result in the individual having a mag dumped in their chest.
But regardless, my point isn't about whether the officers were right or wrong with what happened. It was a messy and complicated situation. Obviously that guy fricked up on multiple levels.
My problem is with Noem's comments. When she specifically said the guy was a threat, that he was there to hurt officers, purely because he showed up with a gun. He has every right to show up there with a gun. Should he have? Should he have done everything else he did? No. But you can't label someone a threat and justify using state force against them purely because they exercise a constitutional right, and that's what she said.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:15 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
If it turns out that an agent disarmed the guy and the weapon fired as he was running away causing the other agents to fire on the decedent, then my assessment is that this was a tragic accident, but I can't blame the agents. They knew at that point that the guy had a gun and the sound of a gun shot is a reasonable threat to officer safety in that situation IMO.
This is all that needs to be said. The guy inserted himself into a police action he had no business being involved in and he paid the price. That's called facing the consequences of your own actions, and we should encourage it more.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News