(01-25-2026 05:33 PM)maximus Wrote:  Its crazy that this guy has been the mkst normal person on the left....

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

The only person on the left not too scared of the lunatic fringe to say what they think.

I wish the Dem aligned media would give a quarter of the coverage allotted to agitator's to the victims killed, maimed, and terrorized by illegal aliens. Every single crime committed by an illegal alien past his or her initial one is preventable, but the Dem’s do not care. It is cruel and wicked.

Libs always deflecting responsibility to those they project their outrageous behavior on.

Soft cowards. All of them.

(01-25-2026 05:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 04:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:32 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:23 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  Constitution guarantees us the individual’s right to keep and bear arms. That’s why I strongly support Second Amendment ... It's there for resistance of oppression. It even was described as a civic duty to act in concert in the defense of the State

2nd amendment right has nothing on earth to do with interfearing with ICE agents and violently resisting arrest.

The two literally have nothing on earth to do with each other.

But you knew that already.

So your stance is they shot this guy for “interfering” (also known as his first amendment right to video ice).


What statute gives them the right to shoot him for interfering?

Are you dense, or just trolling? Or, both? LOL.

Fourth Amendment. And Tennessee vs. Garner. I knew that without looking.

You need to read more, especially news reports that actually discuss this subject in an objective manner. But here, I will help you out one time, since you are painfully retarded.

Quote:The legal right for law enforcement officers to use deadly force against individuals who violently interfere with their lawful operations is not derived from a single, specific statute, but rather from a combination of U.S. Supreme Court rulings (case law), the Fourth Amendment, and department-specific policies.

The foundational legal standard for using deadly force is "objective reasonableness" established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which requires that any force used must be justified by the facts and circumstances.

Here are the key legal authorities and standards:

1. The Constitutional Standard: Tennessee v. Garner

The Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), holds that deadly force is justified when an officer has a reasonable belief that a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.

Violent Interference: If an individual "violently interferes" in a way that creates an immediate, severe threat (e.g., brandishing a weapon, attempting to take an officer's weapon), this meets the Garner standard for an imminent threat.

2. "Objective Reasonableness" (Graham v. Connor)

Under Graham v. Connor, the court evaluates the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than in hindsight. Key factors in justifying force include:

* The severity of the crime.

* Whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others.

* Whether the subject is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

3. Federal and State Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 111: While this statute makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, or impede federal officers, it does not explicitly grant the right to shoot. However, it establishes that violent resistance is a serious felony.
State Statutes: Many states have statutes justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of others (e.g., Alabama Code § 13A-3-23, which allows for deadly force if necessary to defend against a "forcible felony" or "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm").
Federal Regulation (10 CFR 1047.7): For specific federal security officers, this regulation authorizes deadly force to prevent "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm".

4. Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy

DOJ policy explicitly states that officers may use deadly force only when "no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist" and when they have a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

In summary, the right to shoot comes from the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, which allow for the use of deadly force when an officer reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

So when he had six guys on top of him, pinning him down, and an ICE agent had disarmed him, how exactly did he pose a threat of severe bodily harm or death to them when they executed him?

Don't bother asking me any more stupid questions. You are full on retarded. Or more likely, too far gone and indoctrinated to ever recover.

Even when we hand you chapter and verse, you ignore 5000 reasons you're wrong, and try like hell to pick out one thing to win your case, even when it's either untrue, exaggerated, or irrelevant. Those shots were fired in a succession of fractions of a second. Lesson is, DON'T CARRY A WEAPON AND THEN VIOLENTLY RESIST ARREST.

Stop trying to defend the guilty and the stupid just b/c you agree with them politically. Otherwise, you would have defended Ashli Babbitt just as vigorously. Same principle. That cop did not have to shoot her.

You're a full on fraud, dude.

(01-25-2026 06:16 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  I wish the Dem aligned media would give a quarter of the coverage allotted to agitator's to the victims killed, maimed, and terrorized by illegal aliens. Every single crime committed by an illegal alien past his or her initial one is preventable, but the Dem’s do not care. It is cruel and wicked.

They won't because it doesn't fit the narrative.

(01-25-2026 06:23 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 05:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 04:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:32 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  2nd amendment right has nothing on earth to do with interfearing with ICE agents and violently resisting arrest.

The two literally have nothing on earth to do with each other.

But you knew that already.

So your stance is they shot this guy for “interfering” (also known as his first amendment right to video ice).


What statute gives them the right to shoot him for interfering?

Are you dense, or just trolling? Or, both? LOL.

Fourth Amendment. And Tennessee vs. Garner. I knew that without looking.

You need to read more, especially news reports that actually discuss this subject in an objective manner. But here, I will help you out one time, since you are painfully retarded.

Quote:The legal right for law enforcement officers to use deadly force against individuals who violently interfere with their lawful operations is not derived from a single, specific statute, but rather from a combination of U.S. Supreme Court rulings (case law), the Fourth Amendment, and department-specific policies.

The foundational legal standard for using deadly force is "objective reasonableness" established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which requires that any force used must be justified by the facts and circumstances.

Here are the key legal authorities and standards:

1. The Constitutional Standard: Tennessee v. Garner

The Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), holds that deadly force is justified when an officer has a reasonable belief that a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.

Violent Interference: If an individual "violently interferes" in a way that creates an immediate, severe threat (e.g., brandishing a weapon, attempting to take an officer's weapon), this meets the Garner standard for an imminent threat.

2. "Objective Reasonableness" (Graham v. Connor)

Under Graham v. Connor, the court evaluates the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than in hindsight. Key factors in justifying force include:

* The severity of the crime.

* Whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others.

* Whether the subject is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

3. Federal and State Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 111: While this statute makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, or impede federal officers, it does not explicitly grant the right to shoot. However, it establishes that violent resistance is a serious felony.
State Statutes: Many states have statutes justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of others (e.g., Alabama Code § 13A-3-23, which allows for deadly force if necessary to defend against a "forcible felony" or "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm").
Federal Regulation (10 CFR 1047.7): For specific federal security officers, this regulation authorizes deadly force to prevent "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm".

4. Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy

DOJ policy explicitly states that officers may use deadly force only when "no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist" and when they have a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

In summary, the right to shoot comes from the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, which allow for the use of deadly force when an officer reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

So when he had six guys on top of him, pinning him down, and an ICE agent had disarmed him, how exactly did he pose a threat of severe bodily harm or death to them when they executed him?

Don't bother asking me any more stupid questions. You are full on retarded. Or more likely, too far gone and indoctrinated to ever recover.

Even when we hand you chapter and verse, you ignore 5000 reasons you're wrong, and try like hell to pick out one thing to win your case, even when it's either untrue, exaggerated, or irrelevant. Those shots were fired in a succession of fractions of a second. Lesson is, DON'T CARRY A WEAPON AND THEN VIOLENTLY RESIST ARREST.

Stop trying to defend the guilty and the stupid just b/c you agree with them politically. Otherwise, you would have defended Ashli Babbitt just as vigorously. Same principle. That cop did not have to shoot her.

You're a full on fraud, dude.

Balls: Ignore 50 pages of laws and legal decisions, and make up your own rules.

Ballsaqq never has an actual response for anything.

Just troll posts.

(01-25-2026 06:23 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 05:57 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 04:01 PM)TripleA Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:47 PM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 03:32 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  2nd amendment right has nothing on earth to do with interfearing with ICE agents and violently resisting arrest.

The two literally have nothing on earth to do with each other.

But you knew that already.

So your stance is they shot this guy for “interfering” (also known as his first amendment right to video ice).


What statute gives them the right to shoot him for interfering?

Are you dense, or just trolling? Or, both? LOL.

Fourth Amendment. And Tennessee vs. Garner. I knew that without looking.

You need to read more, especially news reports that actually discuss this subject in an objective manner. But here, I will help you out one time, since you are painfully retarded.

Quote:The legal right for law enforcement officers to use deadly force against individuals who violently interfere with their lawful operations is not derived from a single, specific statute, but rather from a combination of U.S. Supreme Court rulings (case law), the Fourth Amendment, and department-specific policies.

The foundational legal standard for using deadly force is "objective reasonableness" established in Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989), which requires that any force used must be justified by the facts and circumstances.

Here are the key legal authorities and standards:

1. The Constitutional Standard: Tennessee v. Garner

The Supreme Court case Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 (1985), holds that deadly force is justified when an officer has a reasonable belief that a suspect poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others.

Violent Interference: If an individual "violently interferes" in a way that creates an immediate, severe threat (e.g., brandishing a weapon, attempting to take an officer's weapon), this meets the Garner standard for an imminent threat.

2. "Objective Reasonableness" (Graham v. Connor)

Under Graham v. Connor, the court evaluates the use of force from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than in hindsight. Key factors in justifying force include:

* The severity of the crime.

* Whether the subject poses an immediate threat to the safety of officers or others.

* Whether the subject is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.

3. Federal and State Statutes

18 U.S.C. § 111: While this statute makes it a crime to forcibly assault, resist, or impede federal officers, it does not explicitly grant the right to shoot. However, it establishes that violent resistance is a serious felony.
State Statutes: Many states have statutes justifying the use of deadly force in self-defense or defense of others (e.g., Alabama Code § 13A-3-23, which allows for deadly force if necessary to defend against a "forcible felony" or "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm").
Federal Regulation (10 CFR 1047.7): For specific federal security officers, this regulation authorizes deadly force to prevent "imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm".

4. Department of Justice (DOJ) Policy

DOJ policy explicitly states that officers may use deadly force only when "no reasonably effective, safe, and feasible alternative appears to exist" and when they have a reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

In summary, the right to shoot comes from the Fourth Amendment, as interpreted by Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor, which allow for the use of deadly force when an officer reasonably believes they are in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or death.

So when he had six guys on top of him, pinning him down, and an ICE agent had disarmed him, how exactly did he pose a threat of severe bodily harm or death to them when they executed him?

Don't bother asking me any more stupid questions. You are full on retarded. Or more likely, too far gone and indoctrinated to ever recover.

Even when we hand you chapter and verse, you ignore 5000 reasons you're wrong, and try like hell to pick out one thing to win your case, even when it's either untrue, exaggerated, or irrelevant. Those shots were fired in a succession of fractions of a second. Lesson is, DON'T CARRY A WEAPON AND THEN VIOLENTLY RESIST ARREST.

Stop trying to defend the guilty and the stupid just b/c you agree with them politically. Otherwise, you would have defended Ashli Babbitt just as vigorously. Same principle. That cop did not have to shoot her.

You're a full on fraud, dude.

You’re the one who is full of it, you have taken like 5 different points of view in this thread to keep justifying the spray tan Gestapo killing this guy.


The video shows that his gun was in the holster until ice removed it. He was pepper sprayed, and crawling with his hands up by his eyes when they executed him.

Those are facts supported by multiple angles of video. Everything else is the propaganda arm of the Nazi party that resides here trying to justify killing an American citizen in the street.

(01-25-2026 07:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Ballsaqq never has an actual response for anything.

Just troll posts.

That's how they've all become.

(01-25-2026 07:04 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 07:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  Ballsaqq never has an actual response for anything.

Just troll posts.

That's how they've all become.

They’re all kooks. ICE is enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, retards are trying to run them over and confronting them while armed and the leftist tards are still calling it “executions”. They all seem to be as conflicted over execution/ self defense as they are over man/ woman.

Evlis, you have a harder time shutting up than Tanq, and that's saying something.

Let's see if you can start now. AMF...

(01-25-2026 07:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Evlis, you have a harder time shutting up than Tanq, and that's saying something.

Let's see if you can start now. AMF...

At least Ofer's gone away again. So there's that.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

They know they are fried

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

(01-25-2026 07:12 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 07:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Evlis, you have a harder time shutting up than Tanq, and that's saying something.

Let's see if you can start now. AMF...

At least Ofer's gone away again. So there's that.

I've noticed that, too.

Chickenhorse was lurking here earlier, but he left.

Tom, Elvis, Balls, and Cajun are the only regulars on here now.

(01-25-2026 07:19 PM)andybible1995 Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 07:12 PM)GeminiCoog Wrote:  

(01-25-2026 07:10 PM)TripleA Wrote:  Evlis, you have a harder time shutting up than Tanq, and that's saying something.

Let's see if you can start now. AMF...

At least Ofer's gone away again. So there's that.

I've noticed that, too.

Chickenhorse was lurking here earlier, but he left.

Tom, Elvis, Balls, and Cajun are the only regulars on here now.

Drunk tanq is on another rehab stint....

Sent from my SM-S928U using Tapatalk

Walz, Ellison Make Things Even Worse With Disgraceful Remarks About ICE and the Border Patrol Shooting

The people are certifiably nuts.

I guess they’ve resurrected Gilbert Godfried to do the def thing….

(01-25-2026 07:28 PM)450bench Wrote:  The people are certifiably nuts.

I love to see those fraudsters squirm.

Oh, and Barry, let's get it on already! You have ruined this country enough, including your fake RussiaGate.

I knew when I listened to the America-hating "pastor" of that "church" you attended, exactly what we were in for when you got elected.