- 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
re: Sheriff weighs in on ICE shooting
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:17 am to Darnell5445
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:17 am to Darnell5445
quote:
I know some of y'all are hitting the downvote with genuine anger.
Anger - hardly.
Bewilderment at how stupid goose-steppers like yourself can be…yes.
1
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:17 am to Darnell5445
quote:
Sheriff
Like the sheriff in Portland that cried because ICE shot two gang members who were trying to kill them?
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:18 am to Darnell5445
Whats tragic is that democrats are the ones who are even responsible for this having zero chance of even being considered to be chargeable:
Minn. Stat. § 609.066.
Under Minnesota law and POST guidance, a vehicle can constitute deadly force when used against an officer. Crucially, an officer is not required to wait until impact to defend themselves. The legal standard is based on intent, proximity, and the officer’s reasonable perception of imminent harm, not whether the officer is already pinned or run over.
In other words, once a driver accelerates toward or strikes an officer while attempting to flee, the threat is legally established. The law does not require officers to assume the driver will brake, turn away, or limit acceleration. It evaluates whether a reasonable officer would perceive an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm in that moment.
Minn. Stat. § 609.066.
Under Minnesota law and POST guidance, a vehicle can constitute deadly force when used against an officer. Crucially, an officer is not required to wait until impact to defend themselves. The legal standard is based on intent, proximity, and the officer’s reasonable perception of imminent harm, not whether the officer is already pinned or run over.
In other words, once a driver accelerates toward or strikes an officer while attempting to flee, the threat is legally established. The law does not require officers to assume the driver will brake, turn away, or limit acceleration. It evaluates whether a reasonable officer would perceive an imminent risk of death or great bodily harm in that moment.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:20 am to Darnell5445
quote:
Darnell
Checks out.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:20 am to Darnell5445
Downvote 33 Great number. And I didn't listen. He should be removed from his position. Imagine having that man as someone that you would depend on having your back
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:22 am to TX Tiger
Muh cult!
Shoot the tire Steve!
Shoot the tire Steve!
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:23 am to Darnell5445
fricking alters are the biggest pussies on the board.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:23 am to Darnell5445
The sheriff ignores that public trust is a two way street. If there is no inherent trust in police, situations like this are bound to happen. That’s what’s getting lost in all of this. Police simply cannot do their jobs if behavior like this is accepted.
He talks about escalation and de-escalation by police. There was no de-escalation available in this scenario, they were there to cause trouble. Police may be held to a high standard, but civilians must be held to some standard for that to work.
He talks about escalation and de-escalation by police. There was no de-escalation available in this scenario, they were there to cause trouble. Police may be held to a high standard, but civilians must be held to some standard for that to work.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:23 am to TX Tiger
quote:
Uh oh, the cult isn't going to like this.
Yeah, I’m sure some people will disagree with the OP and notions therein. That’s kinda sorta the nature of debate and discussion, is it not? Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t that pretty much the purpose of this forum? Assuming you agree with that rather simple and straightforward premise, I would suggest what you (and quite a few others, of course) is in those instances wherein you do run into that very commonplace situation of disagreement between yourself and another person, you automatically go to “you’re cult member.” Aside from that just being silly, it’s also immature in the realm of adult debate and conversation.
This post was edited on 1/11/26 at 11:25 am
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:25 am to Darnell5445
Cuck mentality
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:25 am to davyjones
quote:You've come to the wrong place.
in the realm of adult debate and conversation.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:26 am to TX Tiger
Tires shoot them!
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:26 am to djsdawg
quote:
That’s a dumb frick Sheriff
That's a dumb frick politician.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:26 am to jimmy the leg
quote:This place is nothing if not ironic.
Bewilderment at how stupid goose-steppers like yourself can be…yes.
Thanks for the entertainment value.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:27 am to Darnell5445
quote:
Blindly listen to the federal government, don't use your own brain
What about using your eyeballs to look at the multiple videos available from various angles and then using your brain to recognize an agent was struck by a vehicle?
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:27 am to TX Tiger
Cult!
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:28 am to masoncj
They knew that vehicle was ICE and ICE’s uniforms are prominently marked. 
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:29 am to TX Tiger
Yes. He dropped cult 
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:29 am to Darnell5445
Every Democrat leftist who continues to preach that law enforcement agents (and those on the right) are evil has blood on their hands.
What is the desired outcome of harassing LEOs? These civilians are putting themselves in the way of legal activity. The only right they have is to observe and document behavior of LEOs. They have no right to interfere and harass officers.
This was totally avoidable yet weak-minded people follow evil politicians, pitting American against American. In short, frick you.
What is the desired outcome of harassing LEOs? These civilians are putting themselves in the way of legal activity. The only right they have is to observe and document behavior of LEOs. They have no right to interfere and harass officers.
This was totally avoidable yet weak-minded people follow evil politicians, pitting American against American. In short, frick you.
Posted on 1/11/26 at 11:29 am to Darnell5445
Take the loss and move on, a-hole.
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News