(01-26-2026 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Reality. There was not 1 officer involved shooting in Minneapolis in 2025.

Well when the criminals know they are being policed by cucks and know theyll be right back home after the prosecutors let them out without charges or with a slap on the wrist they look at it like an Uber ride... dummy.

Here are some real stats commie Tom, this data deserves its own thread.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(01-26-2026 12:06 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 11:29 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 10:25 AM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 11:25 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  The fascinating thing to me is the same crowd saying Ashli Babbit was murdered because there was a police force coming up behind her that could have handled it are saying the leftard got what was coming to him.

Can't have it both ways, either you don't do crap that is illegal or presents itself as a threat in the moment or you face the consequences of your actions.

If this guy hadn't been out protesting against ICE he'd still be alive.

If Ashli Babbit hadn't been trying to crawl through a window at Capitol police she'd still be alive.

One thing is certain in this world of turmoil. If you act aggressively at federal agents, you are opening the possibility of getting the swiss cheese treatment.

Im in 100% agreement with this. Ive consistently said Babbit should not have done what she did, period.

You cannot and must not ever put yourself in a position like either of the ones you mentioned.



Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. But she was still murdered.

Ill respectfully disagree, no different than here.

The officers were put in an untenable situation and acted appropriately IMHO.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Nothing at all alike

one police 100% knows a person has a gun. They see it, they hear GUN!GUN!GUN!. A split second later a shot is fired. Any reasonable person could assume they are being shot at and react.

What life threaten danger in the other case? Less do this another way

You play out the 2 cases and the odds of them ending the same way...

the shooting 98% of the time and most likely 100% when there are 7 cops with hands on the suspect when the first shot is fired.

Bein told to not advance through a broken window....

many cops at hand, only one chose to fire his gun and most likely happens 1 out of 1000 times

Nothing alike other than both committed crimes

(01-26-2026 12:16 PM)maximus Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Reality. There was not 1 officer involved shooting in Minneapolis in 2025.

Well when the criminals know they are being policed by cucks and know theyll be right back home after the prosecutors let them out without charges or with a slap on the wrist they look at it like an Uber ride... dummy.

Here are some real stats commie Tom, this data deserves its own thread.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

What a coincidence!!!

(01-26-2026 12:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, there you go again leaving out facts and saying stupid sh!t.

Let's take a vote, shall we?

Yeah, take an internet poll in a biased environment.

(01-26-2026 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, there you go again leaving out facts and saying stupid sh!t.

Let's take a vote, shall we?

Yeah, take an internet poll in a biased environment.

People are asking you clowns simple questions in multiple threads... literally yes and no questions and you people refuse to even answer. They aren't even polls they are simple questions.

I know why you wont answer nor will any of your comrades answer.... you want to give one a go in this exchange?

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(01-26-2026 12:19 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:16 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:15 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:12 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, there you go again leaving out facts and saying stupid sh!t.

Let's take a vote, shall we?

Yeah, take an internet poll in a biased environment.

Hey, nobody forced you to post here.

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I made this point last night that as the gun was being cleared the one guy pulls his gun a split second later you hear a gun go off and then pop pop pop pop. The part I was mistaken on (in my mind didnt say it) I thought I heard the pop as he was raising off the guy. The video he was a step clear so what I thought was a split second was a full second.

Not one of those ICE agents went into this with the thought of getting a kill shot. The only time I think I ever seen a cop want to kill someone was the kid and his girlfriend at a hotel and those 2 cops unloaded on that scared boy for pulling up his pants.

The point I was making last night still holds that everything that happened here is a reaction from this guy not given up the fight with 7 cops. I dont believe anyone acting outside of the law other than the guy still fighting. The shots that killed this guy was a reaction from the gun going off. Not for a second do I believe the shooting was criminal. I do think there's a great chance for a civil judgement

I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might. Anytime law enforcement shoots a person who--at the time of shooting---is unarmed and seems subdued, on the ground, in a 7-on-1 situation---its going to be hard to convince a jury how any police lives were really in danger.

(01-26-2026 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I made this point last night that as the gun was being cleared the one guy pulls his gun a split second later you hear a gun go off and then pop pop pop pop. The part I was mistaken on (in my mind didnt say it) I thought I heard the pop as he was raising off the guy. The video he was a step clear so what I thought was a split second was a full second.

Not one of those ICE agents went into this with the thought of getting a kill shot. The only time I think I ever seen a cop want to kill someone was the kid and his girlfriend at a hotel and those 2 cops unloaded on that scared boy for pulling up his pants.

The point I was making last night still holds that everything that happened here is a reaction from this guy not given up the fight with 7 cops. I dont believe anyone acting outside of the law other than the guy still fighting. The shots that killed this guy was a reaction from the gun going off. Not for a second do I believe the shooting was criminal. I do think there's a great chance for a civil judgement

I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might.

AC, go back and read Rath's comments. The officers and the agency have "qualified immunity," which Rath says is a high bar, and likely will suffice in this case.

I also did a search which gave some of the details of immunity.

As for your argument, all the officers knew Pretti had a gun on him, and had no idea if he had a second one yet. So as soon as the visible gun was removed and then was accidentally misfired, with officers on edge, b/c the perp is STILL resisting, they are not going to do any more checking before they fire. It happens in a split second, and at that point, they IMO are clearly justified.

(01-26-2026 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I made this point last night that as the gun was being cleared the one guy pulls his gun a split second later you hear a gun go off and then pop pop pop pop. The part I was mistaken on (in my mind didnt say it) I thought I heard the pop as he was raising off the guy. The video he was a step clear so what I thought was a split second was a full second.

Not one of those ICE agents went into this with the thought of getting a kill shot. The only time I think I ever seen a cop want to kill someone was the kid and his girlfriend at a hotel and those 2 cops unloaded on that scared boy for pulling up his pants.

The point I was making last night still holds that everything that happened here is a reaction from this guy not given up the fight with 7 cops. I dont believe anyone acting outside of the law other than the guy still fighting. The shots that killed this guy was a reaction from the gun going off. Not for a second do I believe the shooting was criminal. I do think there's a great chance for a civil judgement

I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might.

AC, go back and read Rath's comments. The officers and the agency have "qualified immunity," which Rath says is a high bar, and likely will suffice in this case.

I also did a search which gave some of the details of immunity.

The officers have qualified immunity. I think they can sue ICE. At least thats how it works at the local police level.

(01-26-2026 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I made this point last night that as the gun was being cleared the one guy pulls his gun a split second later you hear a gun go off and then pop pop pop pop. The part I was mistaken on (in my mind didnt say it) I thought I heard the pop as he was raising off the guy. The video he was a step clear so what I thought was a split second was a full second.

Not one of those ICE agents went into this with the thought of getting a kill shot. The only time I think I ever seen a cop want to kill someone was the kid and his girlfriend at a hotel and those 2 cops unloaded on that scared boy for pulling up his pants.

The point I was making last night still holds that everything that happened here is a reaction from this guy not given up the fight with 7 cops. I dont believe anyone acting outside of the law other than the guy still fighting. The shots that killed this guy was a reaction from the gun going off. Not for a second do I believe the shooting was criminal. I do think there's a great chance for a civil judgement

I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might.

AC, go back and read Rath's comments. The officers and the agency have "qualified immunity," which Rath says is a high bar, and likely will suffice in this case.

I also did a search which gave some of the details of immunity.

The officers have qualified immunity. The city does not.

Incorrect. Come on, man, read the search and Rath's comments.

Here, I'll post that part again, right at the top of the quote:

Quote:Yes, law enforcement agencies and officers in the USA have significant liability protections, most notably qualified immunity.

There is no "city" involved. These are federal agents. You think they will sue Minneapolis? Fine, that would suit me. Except Minneapolis also was not involved in any way, unless you want to argue that they should have provided crowd control and kept the nut case at bay.

(01-26-2026 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Reality. There was not 1 officer involved shooting in Minneapolis in 2025.

There also weren't a bunch of protestors interfering with their operations. They didn't have government officials and their idiot followers calling them Nazis and encouraging interference.
If ICE is the issue then why isn't this happening in other places and what is different now from when Obama was using ICE to deport illegals?

(01-26-2026 12:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, you know damn well Pretti did more than just film and shout.

He stepped into an active ICE op, obstructed agents, resisted arrest, and fought back violently. Oh, and carried a loaded gun and at least one extra loaded mag.

Then when an agent removed his gun and tried to leave the scene, it accidentally discharged, resulting in Pretti's death. If he had not brought that stupid gun, he would still be alive.

And every time you argue this case, you leave out every one of those details. Which makes you dishonest.

Wow...amazing, you know all the facts already. Case closed!

Let's not get carried away with one NOT knowing all the facts before drawing a conclusion. BOTH sides are guilty of that, with the most recent evidence being the 5 year old that was "kidnapped" by ICE.

Hey Tom, I didn't say I know ALL the facts. I said you leave out a lot of things that are likely relevant.

And everything in my second paragraph is absolutely true. You seriously want to argue that? It is clear on the video.

(01-26-2026 12:53 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:03 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Tom, you know damn well Pretti did more than just film and shout.

He stepped into an active ICE op, obstructed agents, resisted arrest, and fought back violently. Oh, and carried a loaded gun and at least one extra loaded mag.

Then when an agent removed his gun and tried to leave the scene, it accidentally discharged, resulting in Pretti's death. If he had not brought that stupid gun, he would still be alive.

And every time you argue this case, you leave out every one of those details. Which makes you dishonest.

Wow...amazing, you know all the facts already. Case closed!

Let's not get carried away with one NOT knowing all the facts before drawing a conclusion. BOTH sides are guilty of that, with the most recent evidence being the 5 year old that was "kidnapped" by ICE.

Facts are filth got shot assaulting feds.

That is both sides

(01-26-2026 12:51 PM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:10 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Reality. There was not 1 officer involved shooting in Minneapolis in 2025.

There also weren't a bunch of protestors interfering with their operations. They didn't have government officials and their idiot followers calling them Nazis and encouraging interference.
If ICE is the issue then why isn't this happening in other places and what is different now from when Obama was using ICE to deport illegals?

You second question will never get answered.... valid and logical but they wont even try.

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

We all know the answers to these questions. So do the lefties. They just won't admit the obvious.

(01-26-2026 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I made this point last night that as the gun was being cleared the one guy pulls his gun a split second later you hear a gun go off and then pop pop pop pop. The part I was mistaken on (in my mind didnt say it) I thought I heard the pop as he was raising off the guy. The video he was a step clear so what I thought was a split second was a full second.

Not one of those ICE agents went into this with the thought of getting a kill shot. The only time I think I ever seen a cop want to kill someone was the kid and his girlfriend at a hotel and those 2 cops unloaded on that scared boy for pulling up his pants.

The point I was making last night still holds that everything that happened here is a reaction from this guy not given up the fight with 7 cops. I dont believe anyone acting outside of the law other than the guy still fighting. The shots that killed this guy was a reaction from the gun going off. Not for a second do I believe the shooting was criminal. I do think there's a great chance for a civil judgement

I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might.

AC, go back and read Rath's comments. The officers and the agency have "qualified immunity," which Rath says is a high bar, and likely will suffice in this case.

I also did a search which gave some of the details of immunity.

The officers have qualified immunity. I think they can sue ICE. At least thats how it works at the local police level.

Do they though, and for anything? Has that been tested in any court yet?

(01-26-2026 01:08 PM)TripleA Wrote:  We all know the answers to these questions. So do the lefties. They just won't admit the obvious.

Because it goes against their accepted worldview. And leftists can't have that happen, can they?

(01-26-2026 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  I made this point last night that as the gun was being cleared the one guy pulls his gun a split second later you hear a gun go off and then pop pop pop pop. The part I was mistaken on (in my mind didnt say it) I thought I heard the pop as he was raising off the guy. The video he was a step clear so what I thought was a split second was a full second.

Not one of those ICE agents went into this with the thought of getting a kill shot. The only time I think I ever seen a cop want to kill someone was the kid and his girlfriend at a hotel and those 2 cops unloaded on that scared boy for pulling up his pants.

The point I was making last night still holds that everything that happened here is a reaction from this guy not given up the fight with 7 cops. I dont believe anyone acting outside of the law other than the guy still fighting. The shots that killed this guy was a reaction from the gun going off. Not for a second do I believe the shooting was criminal. I do think there's a great chance for a civil judgement

I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might.

AC, go back and read Rath's comments. The officers and the agency have "qualified immunity," which Rath says is a high bar, and likely will suffice in this case.

I also did a search which gave some of the details of immunity.

The officers have qualified immunity. I think they can sue ICE. At least thats how it works at the local police level.

NO. They cannot likely sue ICE. Btw, those were likely CBP agents, although it doesn't matter.

The search says the agents AND the agency have qualified immunity. Rath confirmed it. If you are correct about local police, then it's simply different.

(01-26-2026 01:37 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:46 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:44 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-26-2026 12:41 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 10:56 PM)TripleA Wrote:  I was with you all the way until your last sentence. You think the perp's family has a case in civil court? I don't see how, since he was clearly in the wrong legally, and started the entire interaction.

Idk. Maybe. If the family has a successful case, it will be because in retrospect, its clear no police lives were actually in danger at the time lethal force was used. The fact is, the officer to the rear clearly opened fire with no real idea as to where the actual danger was. If he could see the guys hands, then he would have known his target was not shooting at anyone---if he couldnt see his targets hands, then he basically had little basis to assume that was the source of gunfire. He just "assumed" it was the source of the gunshot---which could potentially be a problem depending on the jury. Not saying a suit would be successful----just saying I could see how it might.

AC, go back and read Rath's comments. The officers and the agency have "qualified immunity," which Rath says is a high bar, and likely will suffice in this case.

I also did a search which gave some of the details of immunity.

The officers have qualified immunity. I think they can sue ICE. At least thats how it works at the local police level.

NO. They cannot likely sue ICE. Btw, those were likely CBP agents, although it doesn't matter.

The search says the agents AND the agency have qualified immunity. Rath confirmed it. If you are correct about local police, then it's simply different.

There apparently is a process to sue the FBI. I dont know why ICE would be any different. Below is a video that explains the process. After reading up---I do think Rath is right about one thing---it would not be easy to sue these agencies (but it is possible). That said, there will be no massive windfall pay day even if they were to win a suit. There are no punitive damages allowed. Damages are limited to actual compensatory damages---so maybe the estimated remaining lifetime earnings of the deceased would be about the most his family could expect---and it could be much less--including nothing if they lost at trial.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4rfAtGIR8I