- 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 3:18 pm to CatahoulaCur
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:18 pm to CatahoulaCur
There's a whole lot of rationalization going on for a guy who was interfering with law enforcement.
All of you sound exactly like the left. "Yeah, he broke into your home and stole things. That's not worth a death sentence. You should just let him do what he wants. Only you good people should be held accountable, not the criminals."
If your actions put you in a bad situation, then anything that happens is on you. I heard an addiction counselor straight up tell a recovering drug addict that it was her fault that she was raped when she went to the ghetto for drugs. Harsh? Probably. Truthful? Damn straight.
This loser sought out trouble and found it. It's pathetic how many are trying to shift blame to the officers. "We have to save our country. Noooo, not like that! If we can't do it without hurting feelings or tragic accidents, then we should just give up."
All of you blaming the officers are only encouraging more of this behavior from the rioters. You can't coddle people who are fighting against the rule of law. Soft, emotional conservatives are just useful idiots for the left.
All of you sound exactly like the left. "Yeah, he broke into your home and stole things. That's not worth a death sentence. You should just let him do what he wants. Only you good people should be held accountable, not the criminals."
If your actions put you in a bad situation, then anything that happens is on you. I heard an addiction counselor straight up tell a recovering drug addict that it was her fault that she was raped when she went to the ghetto for drugs. Harsh? Probably. Truthful? Damn straight.
This loser sought out trouble and found it. It's pathetic how many are trying to shift blame to the officers. "We have to save our country. Noooo, not like that! If we can't do it without hurting feelings or tragic accidents, then we should just give up."
All of you blaming the officers are only encouraging more of this behavior from the rioters. You can't coddle people who are fighting against the rule of law. Soft, emotional conservatives are just useful idiots for the left.
1
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:19 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
If your actions put you in a bad situation, then anything that happens is on you. I heard an addiction counselor straight up tell a recovering drug addict that it was her fault that she was raped when she went to the ghetto for drugs. Harsh? Probably. Truthful? Damn straight.
Well that's insane. Carry on though.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:20 pm to AGGIES
I work with “moderate” liberals in Houston. I.e. the type that aren’t even bothered to post on social media but will openly talk about Trump or Abbott in the workplace. They were not apologetic or concerned at all with Kirk’s death. Their side does not give an inch. It’s why you see the usual suspects on here avoid any thread where they have to take truly indefensible positions.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 3:21 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:23 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
What does this mean? Genuinely
And applied to this event, at what point was the deceased interfering as far as that law is concerned?
1- They were directed to a location where ICE/BP were carrying out a LAWFUL arrest via Signal.
2- When the agents saw him and others, they formed a line to keep people away from the execution of that lawful arrest.
3- When that guy walked up to the agents, He entered their personal space. At that point, you elevate what the LEO can do. Even the Chicago PD understands that. Any words or actions that may be considered an attempt to obstruct or bait them is cause to use force. Here is the factual words from that judge:
"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."
4- The woman, who had already been told not to approach did so and the LEO used pushed her back.
5- The guy then went into action.
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 8th circuit took issue with what that judge ruled. Because she tried to limit the LEO by saying they could not use normal control methods. Here is what the 8th stated:
January 21, 2026, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals responded:
the 8th Circuit removed the prohibition on agents using tear gas and pepper spray against "unobstructive" observers.
The 8th Circuit also suspended the portion of the ruling that said following ICE vehicles at a "safe distance" was protected. This restored the agents' ability to pull over and detain "witness" vehicles they believe are interfering with their operations.
quote:
The officer was the cause of any face to face interaction. It was also out of the way of the operation wasn’t it?
Like I said. Once they started showing up. It is the job of LEO to form a perimeter. That's what they did.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:28 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Translation: You don't know why she was shoved. Yet, your "None of this justifies the agent shoving the woman" post presupposes that you do.
Really?
Why was she shoved?
---
You'd have to ask the agent that. Probably him being angry and overreacitng
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:29 pm to BCreed1
I appreciate the response.
It’s going to be a bit before I can respond, as I’m rushing to the gym to beat the crowd. I’ll also need to review the earliest footage we have of the deceased walking up to the officers.
My contention has never been that he shouldn’t have been arrested, fwiw.
It’s going to be a bit before I can respond, as I’m rushing to the gym to beat the crowd. I’ll also need to review the earliest footage we have of the deceased walking up to the officers.
My contention has never been that he shouldn’t have been arrested, fwiw.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
None of this justifies the agent shoving the woman.
Again, Mr Attorney. You may want to get up to date.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:32 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You don't know why she was shoved. Yet, your "None of this justifies the agent shoving the woman" post presupposes that you do.
Me understanding exactly why the agent shoved her isn't necessary to declare it unjustified
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 3:32 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:33 pm to BCreed1
quote:
Again, Mr Attorney. You may want to get up to date.
None of the case law you're mis-interpreting again applies to my comment.
Go read my later post. I clarified for people like you.
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:33 pm to CatahoulaCur
quote:
the ICE officer made a really big error.
Neither individual officer, whether ICE or BP, made an error.
Play stupid games and win stupid prizes. I'm a very big believer in that those who don't insert themselves into dangerous situations, don't end up getting harmed.
It's ironic that other States that have had much higher arrests of Illegal aliens are not experiencing these criminal protests.
Self-Responsibility is so hard for Leftists for some reason. It's always someone else's fault or responsibility.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:35 pm to NC_Tigah
Yes sir. He was clueless last night on the SCOTUS ruling (9-0) Barnes case too.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:37 pm to BCreed1
quote:
He was clueless last night on the SCOTUS ruling (9-0) Barnes case too.
Oh lord
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:37 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Of course it is. Your lack of understanding infers you are not in a position to affirmatively qualify the action as "unjustified."
Me understanding exactly why the agent shoved her isn't necessary to declare it unjustified
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:39 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Me understanding exactly why the agent shoved her isn't necessary to declare it unjustified
It's not you who is the judge sir. That would be the courts.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:39 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Of course it is.
No. It's not.
Could he have detained her? Sure.
Shoving her after approaching from a few feet when she posed no threat and there was no need to create space? No. If she was in his face? Probably. However, the video clearly shows she was at least a few feet away from him, so he had no need to create space.
What was going through the LEO's mind is not going to change what was on video.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:40 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
None of the case law you're mis-interpreting again applies to my comment.
No mis-interpreting anything.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Was there a man armed with a SIG P320 nearby?
What was going through the LEO's mind is not going to change what was on video.
Asking for a friend.
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:45 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Was there a man armed with a SIG P320 nearby?
Assuming your framing, why would that justify an officer shoving someone else posing no threat and not in close proximity to him?
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Assuming your framing
Dude! quote:Wait! you're asking me to speculate about your speculation? I'm not the one making the affirmative statement here.
why would that justify an officer shoving someone else posing no threat
There are a dozen potential reasons.
Perhaps his actions were intended to quickly remove her from what turned out to be a deadly scene? i.e., Saved her from getting shot?
This post was edited on 1/26/26 at 3:54 pm
Posted on 1/26/26 at 3:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Wait! you're asking me to speculate about your speculation?
No. I'm asking for your analysis of the justification within the framed scenario you presented.
quote:
Perhaps his actions were intended to quickly remove her from what turned out to be a deadly scene?
So he approaches her, closes the gap, shoves her, and creates that deadly scene?
quote:
Saved her from getting shot?
Based on what articulatable facts? Nobody had a gun drawn (we have the video to confirm this).
Page 6 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News