- 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: Two things can be true at the same time
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:57 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Multiple agents appear to do things wrong, starting with the guy who shoved the lady.
Wrong again. Mr Attorney, you may want to get up to speed on court rulings including the Jan 16th ruling.
Minnesota federal judge clarified that while people have a right to gather and "witness" (film) ICE agents, that right ends the moment their physical presence "obstructs or interferes" with the agents' duties. The ruling explicitly states that if a person "gets in the face" of an agent or uses their body to block an agent’s path, they are no longer protected by the First Amendment right to assemble.
The judge was equally specific about where First Amendment protection ends. She noted that physical proximity changes the legal nature of the act:
quote:
"The First Amendment does not provide a license to physically impede federal officers in the performance of their duties. A person who 'gets in the face' of an officer—entering the immediate tactical space of an agent in a manner that a reasonable officer would perceive as a physical threat or an attempt to forcibly interfere—is not engaged in protected assembly."
So no sir. You are as wrong as ever.
2
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:58 pm to CatahoulaCur
quote:
Admitting wrongdoing that the ICE officer acted unjustifiably, does not sour (or should not sour) ICE in general.
What if the agent didn’t? What standard to justifiable are you applying? The standard from a comfy desk after the fact or the standards of in the moment?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:58 pm to CatahoulaCur
quote:"Unjustifiably" is a floating signifier in this situation.
Admitting wrongdoing that the ICE officer acted unjustifiably, does not sour (or should not sour) ICE in general.
The BP officer may have mistakenly perceived a threat. But this was a situation where an armed man aggressively interfered with law enforcement. In that sense, Pretti is a posthumous Darwin award winner. It's unfortunately a classic FAFO incident.
I'd guess Pretti's SIG Sauer 9mm will get tested for a potential accidental discharge design flaw or modification though. SS has a "voluntary recall" in place for the P320. If a design flaw is present, SIG is set to get their butts sued.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 2:59 pm to DeltaDoc
Nope. Ignorance.............
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:01 pm to NC_Tigah
That would be Sig getting sued again.
They have been sued repeatedly over this model.
They have been sued repeatedly over this model.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:04 pm to DeltaDoc
quote:No.
The guy that got killed was protesting something that was a lawful action being taken against people in this nation illegally.
The guy that got killed was not protesting something that was a lawful action being taken against people in this nation illegally.
The guy that got killed was interfering with a lawful action by law enforcement officers.
There is a big difference.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:04 pm to CatahoulaCur
OK, but in this case, you have to examine proximal causes. The most relevant and proximal cause of this tragic outcome was superhero nurse bringing a malfunctioning weapon to a protest. An error which he then compounded by involving himself in an altercation with armed agents of the state.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:07 pm to NC_Tigah
Correct
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:07 pm to BCreed1
quote:What does this mean? Genuinely
Minnesota federal judge clarified that while people have a right to gather and "witness" (film) ICE agents, that right ends the moment their physical presence "obstructs or interferes" with the agents' duties
And applied to this event, at what point was the deceased interfering as far as that law is concerned?
quote:Is this like, universal? At all times? The officer was the cause of any face to face interaction. It was also out of the way of the operation wasn’t it? Does this rule apply to over there?
The ruling explicitly states that if a person "gets in the face" of an agent or uses their body to block an agent’s path, they are no longer protected by the First Amendment right to assemble.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:08 pm to Bwmdx
quote:
A biased jury pool scared to acquit sent him to jail after calls of further violence from our esteemed democrat colleagues.
There was also an ME report calling it a homicide.
I make no comment on whether I believe that ME was ideologically motivated, but the report exists and had to be a driving factor.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:09 pm to Clark14
quote:
What did he do to justify what happened to him?
I do not know, either way, which is why I followed up the statement you quoted from me with:
quote:
Him simply having the gun is not justification for him being shot several times. Did he try to pull it out to shoot? Was he shot before or after the other officer took it away from him?
Facts matter. What are the facts?
But then you decided to proceed with:
quote:
But you have been told how to think so go with that I guess. Or you could watch the videos and see the truth, but you won’t.
So frick off. I might ultimately be on your side on this issue at the end of the day, but you've obviously already decided where I stand.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:09 pm to roadGator
quote:Not very successfully as far as I can tell. They were found liable at trial in a couple of incidents, but it appears they were able to successfully overturn most of those findings
They have been sued repeatedly over this model.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:10 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Mr Attorney, you may want to get up to speed on court rulings including the Jan 16th ruling.
Minnesota federal judge clarified that while people have a right to gather and "witness" (film) ICE agents, that right ends the moment their physical presence "obstructs or interferes" with the agents' duties. The ruling explicitly states that if a person "gets in the face" of an agent or uses their body to block an agent’s path, they are no longer protected by the First Amendment right to assemble.
None of this justifies the agent shoving the woman.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:12 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:100% false!
The officer was the cause of any face to face interaction
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Really?
None of this justifies the agent shoving the woman.
Why was she shoved?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:14 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Really?
Why was she shoved?
You'd have to ask the agent that. Probably him being angry and overreacitng
Note, before this goes off the rails. I specifically said shoved
If she had actually interfered, could he have lawfully detained her? Sure. That's a FAR cry from shoving her while she posed no threat.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:15 pm to NC_Tigah
Once he established that he wasn’t going to cuff anyone, I believe he is to blame for the face to face.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
SlowirrelevancyPro you go counselor!
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:17 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Man, are you in the wrong place.
I cannot even conceptualize the prison of rejecting personal thoughts due to group identification.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:17 pm to TX Tiger
Settle down TX Tireshooter.
Page 5 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News